No rest day for me tomorrow. I took another one today. Two in a row. That might be a record for me.

FGB 458
as rx'd

Crossfit Sacramento
male/200lbs/6'1''/17

thanks coach!!!

AllisonNYC you are training with the coach aren't you?

been doin XFIT for about a month did fran today as rx'd 3:14

Congratulations Josh Bridges. Wear that Budweiser with pride, and be careful over there in the sand box.

I don't like the butterfly kip!

While doing Fran in 2:02 is impressive by any standards (and a REALLY intense two minutes), it isn't the same. These videos of super fast Fran times are only happening because people found a way to do the exercise differently NOT because they are more fit than their last try.

No one claims how heavy they can push press or push jerk if someone is talkign about their shoulder press. Like dead hangs, kipping pullups and butterfly pullups, they are all just different moves. Crossfit is about becoming as fit as you can possibly be - not changing the rules so you seem to be more fit. I'm not saying they aren't fit - just that their Fran times seem to have dropped dramatically because of a new pullup form. I don't think their Linda or Grace or Nancy times show the same type of improvement!

congrats josh!

holy %$#% Josh! way to go man keep kickin ass!

Man he wasn't even that winded.

Matt,

While I agree with you somewhat, no one says that you need to do Fran doing conventional kipping pullups. Chin over the bar....that is the rule. How you get there is up to you. (although, on numerous reps, Josh is clearly "reaching" with his chin, and just barely getting there).

I don't see anyone nagging at Annie for her more kicking style of kip vs the more traditional swinging technique that most use.

I personally can do all 3.
But I can only do up to 15 butterflys. So doing them for Fran is out.
I use Annie's technique at the indoor track, where the bars are attached to walls, and don't stick out far enough to do a swinging kip.
And I use the swing method for max reps.

No matter what technique I use, I'm still bagged at the end of the workout, and that's what matters.

Matt,

They are still doing the same amount of 'work' but in less time. You dont see the advantage to that?

Josh your an animal!

It was amazing to watch last time when you did your 2:04 Fran and great to see it on video this time @ 2:02!

Also, a big congrats on the Trident brother! Its great to know that its studs like you keeping us safe.

#7 Matt -

What your saying makes no sense, think about it why do we kip the original pullup? to do more, faster, so once we get that down, we butterfly kip the regular kip to go even faster. Give them some credit, they deserve it...

butterfly kip, the kip and a pullup are not different moves there the same, just using the whole body in a different way, in doing creating shorter time

#7
I think the butterfly pull up is definitely not cheating nor should frans with the butterfly have an Asterisk next to them. It should be compared to improving form, the better your form the more efficient you are and the higher intensity you can maintain. Have you ever tried the butterfly pull up, it definitely takes an amazing amount of skill and fitness and respect anyone that can do it.

matt from oz, I think his kip was far from a butterfly...he may have been trying but that was why he was all over the place. Great effort either way but looked like his muscle strength got him over more often than his kip. Who wrote the book on how a kip should look anyway. Full extension of the arms and chin over the bar regardless of how it happens.

Just wait until my arm-shortening surgery I got in China heals...then we'll see some real pullup improvement on my Fran time.

wow early post...i forgot this was 3 days!!

i love early christmas...

Rest day tomorrow--except for the 30 minute speed-walk I promised to do with my wife. No rest for the old guys!

Josh--super-congrats on both your Budweiser and your Fran score. If you'll pardon the term, you "youngsters" keep me motivated!

Dead hang pullups are more physically taxing and everyone knows it. Kipping is a work-around to avoid the unpleasantness while giving the illusion of increased work capacity in the guise of inflated number of (easier) reps.

Kipping is bad for the soul. Be warned.

mother of GOD! you are insane josh

Interesting article. AIDS was initially called GRIDS (Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome) by the CDC. But the gay community lobbied against this name fearing they would not receive the funding/support to find a cure. They feared that the religious folks in the country would point to Bible passages like:

Romans 1:27: "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

They gay community did not want to be associated with a disease that some would feel was caused by there sinful lifestyle choices. I have read other research that suggests the possibility that AIDS, or GRIDS, is caused by a break down of the immune system from all the bacteria absorbed while practicing sodomy. Once the disease is developed, it is then passed on through the sperm of the infected person. But no engaged in this form of perversity wants to be told that their lifestyle choice is immoral, let alone the sole cause of a disease that has now spread into the heterosexual community. Much easier to say it came from a monkey (poor monkey).

Most of us have known people that have died from AIDS/GRIDS. It is killing indiscriminately, and those who are left behind are left with the pain of a life that was once full, and then suddenly gone. People need to make major changes in their lifestyle choices, and make those changes in a manor that promotes health, and prevents the spread of this disease. Whether AIDS/GRIDS is caused by male sodomy or not, one fact remains true, it is spread that way.

Jub_Jub,

Work=(F*d)/t

There's nothing illusory about it.

Excellent Fran time and congrats on the Trident.

Matt in Oz I think you are looking for more virtuosity in some of the best times. I am with you. Many of those pull-ups werent complete and none of the thrusters were good. The Barbell never made it to the top position (completely overhead.) The athlete has adapted to throwing his head foward to give the appearance of going overhead but the arms never make it to verticle and the shoulders never properly engage to get the true overhead, not even for 1 rep. This seems to be typical for all of the great times I have seen videos of lately.

http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/Virtuosity.pdf

I do not know if we are allowed to post articles, though I am sure many of you have read this, but this is one of the best articles I have ever read about pushing yourself when doing your workouts.

This should be posted in every CF Affiliate Gym.

http://www.againfaster.com/articles/dedication.html

I certainly wouldn't call what Mr. Bridges was doing a butterfly kip, it was fast, but ugly, but got the job done.

Lay off the dude, if he's got a Trident, he's accomplished what what most of America has never even contmplated subjecting themselves to.

Or maybe we should just ridicule and fear what we don't understand,

Congrats Josh, on both accomplishments.

Congrats on the Bird, Josh. Work as hard in the Teams as you did in that Fran video and you should do well.

On the aspect of "virtuosity of movement," however, I will have to agree with some of the above posters. There are checkpoints for each individual movement in any workout...

I have yet to find a video of a sub-3 minute Fran where the athlete has completed the prescribed number of "Qualified Reps" (QRs). Even videos of OPT, AFT, and some other great athletes...you usually see between 3-8 "Non-qualifiying Reps" (NQRs) throughout the workout.

In the grand scheme of things, these people are still doing a tremendous amount of work (even if they miss a QR by 1-3 inches of joint extension) and should be given due credit/respect for it.

However, in competition (i.e. CrossFit Games) this aspect of the event should be closely monitored.

As for the butterfly kip/regular kip...its the same weight moved the same distance. You are teaching your body to move more efficiently, which is COORDINATION...anyone want to argue with me that coordination isn't an aspect of fitness?

M/43 6'6" 265 LBS

FGB
SCALED AS FOLLOWS-
SDHP-65 LBS
PUSH PRESS 55 LBS
THE REST AS RX'D
295
MY LAST FGB WAS 245
I LOVE THAT W.O.D.
STILL CAN NOT GET A DAMN PULLUP THOUGH!

#23 Jeff:

Work = F x d
Power = (F x d) / t

Yours
-s

if we're concerned with power output, which we are, then any means of doing a movement faster is advantageous, as long as you complete the full range of motion. really, the "butterfly" kip is just a different style of kip, so it's just as valid.

while Josh is obviously insanely fit and could smoke me on probably any given workout, he missed a lot of those pullups, so his time should not have been that low. it's still pretty impressive, though. i'm just a stickler for form I guess.

Congrats on the trident and on the Fran time Josh!

I have a question regarding the weight amounts used in the WOD. For example with Fran, we're supposed to do 95lb thrusters. is this the bar weight + 95 or bar and whatever weight makes a total of 95lbs?

#28
hell yeah brother, thats the gods honest truth.
josh, youre a badass on all accounts.

#23
i agree totally with you.

virtuosity is absolutely important, especially in these movements, but without going faster, we wont ever go anywhere, its just adaptation. as long as the movements are complete the work has been accomplished.

Before I say the following let me say I am pro-kip.

Kip Justification? ...dun dun dun.. to the Archives of Quotes From Previous and Similar Discussions:

{Roll Film}"In explaining the superiority of kipping, it helps to note that the strict pull-up only makes sense if you hold the misguided belief that an exercise should target only a few isolated muscles."
{beep}
Once you see the strict pull-up in its proper perspective the artificial equivalent of a body-weight bicep curl -- it looks positively silly.

Is it harder? Yes, for the two muscle groups isolated.
{beep}
Do strict pull-ups build comparative dysfunction?

Yes -- isolating muscles away from whole body movement, and programming that movement and recruitment pattern, is like posting ten security guards at your front door and ignoring your back door."

Now for a bit of "rule lawyering" humor for pullups:
condition one: arms to full extension at the bottom.
condition 2: chin over bar at top.

How does the gymnastic move "Giant Back Swing" not meet these 2 requirments? Full extension at bottom, check. Chin over bar at top, check.

Sure for a single rep the Giant Back Swing slower but long term and over many reps it seems advantagous.

Robb Wolf has a pretty in depth article about the butterfly kip if anyone's interested.

http://robbwolf.com/?p=90

i don't like the way he kips because I can't do it, yada yada (or jub jub in this case), etc. The butterfly kip is no more of a cheat than Buddy Lee's double unders. The rope goes around twice in one jump, but the jump is far more effecient and stringable than any donkey-kicked tuck jump.

Matt from Oz - you say what if we were comparing the weight someone could jerk... what if 1 person can jerk more because they've learned to split-jerk instead of squatting? Would you say we're comparing apples and oranges or that they're still jumping the bar overhead and as long as they reach full extension and stand with the weight overhead, then nice job?

That was an awesome and inspiring effort to watch and congrats on the trident, Josh. The only thing that didn't sit right with me was the bend in the pull-up bar. It just seems a bit springy. Does noone else see that?

Double Jubber, how many dead hangs you got, stud?

Maybe they should come up with a "Fran" that calls for strict pull-ups, another for kipping pull-ups and another for butterfly pull-ups(don't like them very much).

Solly,
Good to hear your still Xfitting in Oz.
As per the debate you've initiated, I'll give you that the Butterfly kip takes less isolated (shoulder and back) strength then a dead-hang, but on the other side of things as far as the amount of physical work being done, they should be equivocal.
Arguably when I'm done doing 50 kipping pullups i'm more energetically drained than after doing 50 dead-hangs probably because my back and forearm muscles fatique earlier doing dead-hangs and thus can't do the same amount of work in such a short period of time.
As far as Fran's go, not to take anything away from the fast times, but I agree that although Crossfit attempts to push people just beyond the point of breaking form, strict form (clearing the bar with the chin proplerly and complete shoulder activation in presses) IS essential.
Don

Congratulations on receiving your Trident Josh! I don't think we should take anything away from Josh because his time is "questionable" due to butterfly kipping pull-ups. I can't even perform a string of kipping pull-ups unbroken like he did, let alone butterfly kipping pull-ups.

If we were to closely monitor his form and require him to perform "Fran" in a manner that we would consider satisfactory, he would still, in my humble opinion, beat most of our times. In fact, I think he would beat just about any typical CrossFitter on here in most events. It's obvious Josh has achieved a level of elite fitness AND he just earned his Trident. I, for one, will not be critical.

The form was filth, reps for thrusters were nasty, he looked like greg aumundson in some of the old videos. The pull-ups were nasty tasting, hardly over the bar. In my opinion the type of pull-up does not matter as long as they are sexy clean. These were foul, but the whole fran was foul. The guy is in shape, but he just needs a little form coaching. I saw CJ's bald head shaking his hand when it was all over, he should have been hitting him with a PVC pipe because now everyone knows that CJ stinks and alows bad form as long as he gets good times. Shame on you CJ.
Congrats on getting your butterfly today kid, maybe that is why you did the butterfly pull-ups. Anyway good luck and best wishes in your military career.

#29 Zach F ... great call on the Coordination aspect.

#7 Matt

Interesting points, but same mass moving same vertical distance in less time is a more powerful movement-and isn't that what we are all about here?

And picking out a few bad reps, sure you will find it in pretty much any benchmark time in the benchmark wods. But that is where intensity comes in. You cannot be a stellar race car driver if you crash all the time, and you will never be the best if you never crash. It is not about cheating, it is about functionality and if the BFK is a more powerful movement than it might just be a more functional pull up. It is all in the progression.

Josh, you are a machine. Way to represent CFSD. We will be eagerly awaiting sub 2.

I'm not against kipping. I understand that you increase your power because you do more reps in less time. I also know that kipping in any way is an athletic move that takes both strength and skill. That's not what I'm getting at.

What I'm trying to say is that they shouldn't be compared as if they are the same. You don't compare push press, push jerk and shoulder press because they are CLEARLY different movements.

The Girl WODs are used as benchmarks to determine our level of fitness. In Crossfit, the key is the wide variety. eg Having a massive CFT means nothing if Fran takes you 20 minutes. But simply increasing your time because you know how to do pullups in a different way doesn't make you fitter: It just lowers your time. I know that seems like dumb backwards thinking - but changing the way you do pullups just changes the workout not your fitness.

Hey Don!

#29 check out http://youtube.com/watch?v=-gLsSa4vk8Q

for a "virtuous" sub 3 fran. What do think? I reckon he could go a bit faster - come on Matt :)

Don't mean to sound stupid here, maybe Im wrong. But you just took an operator, identified him as an operator, provided first and last name and supplied 2+ minutes of visual identification on a worldwide public access forum. Isn't that combination potentially dangerous? Again, maybe Im wrong.

Don't mean to sound stupid here, maybe Im wrong. But you just took an operator, identified him as an operator, provided first and last name and supplied 2+ minutes of visual identification on a worldwide public access forum. Isn't that combination potentially dangerous? Again, maybe Im wrong.

#37
buretto,

"The only thing that didn't sit right with me was the bend in the pull-up bar. It just seems a bit springy. Does noone else see that?"

You beat me to it. I do my pull ups on my hand-me-down Soloflex. The bar doesn't budge.

I've also done pull ups on the fitness trail at the park behind my house. The station is two parallel bars overhead, running about 8 feet or so, held up by 4x4s. The bars flex and at times I feel like I'm weightless. Definitely makes a difference in the number of pull ups I can do.

Brian.

#14 great comment Devin...

Josh...thank you for your service and God bless you always...congrats to you on getting your trident!

Excellent Fran time...maybe you can come down to NY to show us here how you achieved that!I need to improve my fran time.

GOOD JOB!keep training hard...

GRIDS was first described when I was in medical school. Pretty fascinating stuff, but it looked like it would be kind of a tiny niche thing, pretty esoteric internal medicine grand rounds type of weird rare thing...stuff.

As an intern I met my first AIDS patients right around the time that HIV was discovered. As a resident I followed the devastating blinding eye problems that AIDS patients developed. Indeed, I proposed a treatment of intraocular (inside the eye) injection treatment for AIDS-related infections that was universally ridiculed but which is now standard fare in the treatment of macular degeneration.

And all of my AIDS patients died. Every single one of them. 100% mortality.

Lo and behold, now comes treatment for HIV, and now these patients survive. Nay, not survive, now they live. AIDS now has more in common with diabetes than it does with ebola virus. My AIDS patients no longer get opportunistic infections and they no longer die.

Kinda tough to reconcile that in the black box, eh? I don't know...call me a conformist...it's just kinda suspicious, you know, that these folks just up and stopped dyin' once that anti-HIV cocktail came along.

The lasting legacy of HIV/AIDS is something totally different, however. Regardless of the etiologic agent, and regardless of the current treatment success, HIV/AIDS is the first disease whose treatment and care was driven by politics and political pressure. HIV/AIDS predated, predicted, and set the stage for all of the grand-standing we now have for the hot disease of the month trumpeted by the affected or concerned celebrity of the moment.

At its core HIV/AIDS was and is a communicable disease, and moreso a sexually transmitted disease. Worldwide the majority of HIV/AIDS is still a sexually transmitted disease, and in Africa the involvement of drugs is nil. And yet despite the absolute success of the reporting of disease presence in sexual contacts in diseases such as gonorrhea and syphillus, the incidence of both dramatically decreased simply by public health measures and mandatory reporting, HIV/AIDS was treated as if it was different. This difference was demanded by the organized Gay lobby, and the capitulation of the CDC resulted in untold numbers of preventable deaths.

The question that will be raised in this line of discussion, indeed the question that must be raised, is whether the present state of HIV/AIDS treatment and control would have been achieved in the absence of this response by the militant aspects of the Gay community. Hundreds of millions of dollars were diverted from research to find the cure for diseases that killed more people (by several orders of magnitude) to research to find a cure for HIV/AIDS, all in direct response to the political pressure applied by the Gay lobby. Many people died for want of a cure that may have been found if dollars had been applied elsewhere.

At the end of the day I really have no answers here. It's really a zen koan, is it not? Break the rules and prohibit what has worked in the past in order to avoid the possibility of discrimination and ridicule, politicize the process and get a cure, all the while preventing the quiet and non-political from gaining the same. Don't do it and risk being marginalized, which equals dying.

The reality is that we are left with a politicized arena of disease research, and we are left with an arena in which proven methods of disease control are off limits if the disease is largely confined to a "hot button" group. We are left with a system that reacts to effective PR and politics, some times at the expense of effective methods.

Duesberg's line of thought is provocative, but it fails the CF black box test. The legacy of GRIDS/HIV/AIDS is not scientific or medical, it is political.

We will see what the effect will be when THAT comes out the other end of the black box.

Rick-
There are no violations of OPSEC or inherent dangers in an operator or any other member of the military or OGA's contributing videos that disclose identity and name. If the person is in a position that they can't disclose what they associated with, they will know that and then not post such information.

But heads up on looking out for the brother!

Bridges, I lost your contact info, but if you see this, congrats on making it through the pipeline man. When I did Fran with you and Singer after boot camp, that was my first CrossFit workout and I pretty much hated it. Mike and I have been working out at a CrossFit gym here for the last few months and are getting close to the end of our school. Anyway, hope all is well man.

-Jake Anderson

Outstanding effort by Josh, and a huge thanks to his dedication and commitment to defend our country!!
It always amazes me how members of this forum continue to question the theory behind functional movements. I think healthy debate is.....well healthy, but this kipping discussion is old and very extensively discussed/defended by many previous forums here. If the higher level trainors of Crossfit agree that the butterfly kip is legit, then why question it? If you don't agree do dead hangs and get over it or go back to lateral raises and leg extensions!!

Relax every body. If there is anything in question here it's not the Butterfly vs. the Kipp. It's the fact that a trainer let him get away with all that filthy form. CJ you should be ashamed. I saw your bald head going over to congradulate and I am disapointed in you.

I don't know nothin' bout no budderfly kipping but did anyone notice the guy wearing gloves and playing with the medicine ball behind Sevan?

Matt in OZ we don't compare shoulder press, push press and push jerks because the loads are all different in each exercise. In a pull-up the load is alway the same, it's you. I don't think Josh was any less fit when his Fran time was say 45 seconds longer, he's just more efficient now and the way he kips is part of that efficiency improvement.

M/19/5'9"/176

I hope to one day be a part of Josh's brotherhood.

CrossFit and CrossFit Endurance has helped me thus far!!

y is there a .dmg file of flock 1.0.5 on crossfit servers? maybe end users shouldn't be able to see the directory.

First off, impressive showing on this Fran but the lack of ROM on the pullups makes his time illegit.

Second, I agree with #43 Matt in Oz, the BF kip is a legit kip, but comparing it to the standard kip is like comparing the push jerk to the push press. The cylce time and power output are higher for the BF kip, but it's a different movement. But, this does not mean a * should be placed next to anybody's time who used a BF kip. "Fitness" mean to be fit to the task, and in this case, completing Fran. To increase your fitness, you must expand your skill set so that you have a variety of kips to choose from and use at your discretion. Grace is ground to head anyhow but people jerk the weight because they know how to and it is more efficient. If athletes want a competitive Fran time, they must learn how to BF kip because it is more efficient.

Third, Jub Jub is an idiot.

#7 and any body that agrees with him...
All I can say is you have probably never tried to do alot of butteryfly kips... because they are hard to learn, especially on a striaght bar. And you say the butteryfly kip is cheating... thats what the average globogym person says about the swing kip.

It is like saying press's are ok, push press's are ok but push jerks aren't ok.

How about you try to learn to butteryfly as well as the elite athletes that use them... then you probably won't be all butt hurt about it.

#45-Rick,

No worries. Depending on where and how he is deployed; having his name (you assume its his real name), the fact that he is now a Team guy, and video published of him doing Fran, is not going to compromise him.

He will more then likely be sporting a healthy beard, and longer hair while playing in the sand box, and if he is assigned to an SDV team, he [may] spend most his time under water.

approved

Unless you are a rock climber strict pull-ups aren't necessary for general athletic training. I mean really if someone wants to swing around a highbar like a gymnast on their Fran they should go for it, they are meeting the arms extended chin over the bar criteria and so therefore qualify, though I can't imagine how dizzy you would be after 21 in a row :)
For those who want a more strict version you should go for it. Instead of a thruster do a frontsquat, stop all momentum then shoulder press. Then do L-Pullups. No one could say anything about cheating then and I am sure it would be one hell of a burn.

Variety is the spice of life and Crossfit is as spicy as hell!

A 2:02 Fran is a 2:02 Fran! Nice work.

36yom
5'11"
152lbs

#60 Greg, Very good points, was about to go there myself but didnt know how to state it. Once again things come down to silent professionals. Unfortunately the only time we hear of our heroes and their awesome work is through the hometown papers or a hero WOD.
First it was dead hang pullups vs. kipping pullups. Now we having kipping pullups vs. butterfly pullups. I think its funny. Master the butterfly pullup and then start comparing your benchmark WODs to your others with kipping. Yes you may be able to not set pullups and yes you may squeeze some more pullups out BUT what is the end result? All who truly understand Crossfit understand. That lovely metcon burn that will leave you laying on the floor trying to suck in the Earths atmosphere just to be able to get back on your feet.
Congrats on the Fran time and congrats on the Trident brother.
Last but not least I do have a request. I would like to see some of the benchmark WODs performed by some of our Crossfit big boys. 6'0 or above!

YEA FRESNO STATE BASEBALL!! congrats to my bulldogs for winning the NCAA Championship!! gotta love a cinderella story!!

ck

I usually don't criticize these monsters form, but I didn't like how he was bouncing off of the Dynamax ball. When you are tired and get down in the hole, a little bump from that D-ball makes a lot of difference. I think I would vote for Speal's performance vs this one, but still VERY strong work.

41deuce

30/M/5'9"/170

First of all, Matt:

Please pardon me if the following point has already been argued, but I haven't read ALL the posts yet.

Lowering your Fran time because you figured out a more efficient way to do work seems like a legit CrossFit feat to me. Obviously that took coordination and skill to get the body to move so effortlessly. Rant finished.

Fight Gone Bad:

Second time doing it, first time to record performance.

224:

As Rx'd except subbed 14lb ball for 20lb. (didn't have one). I was smoked but the endorphin kick was amazing once the exhaustion wore off.

I know that score doesn't compare to some of you veteran monsters, but could somebody tell me if it's a RESPECTABLE score for a 1.5 mo CrossFitter with my dimensions?

REST DAY????? Who needs one?? Gonna swim 1000m tomorrow and work on my double unders. I'm up to around 15 in a row before I lose my rhythm. Hopefully my rings will come in tomorrow so I can try to muscle it up!!!!

Dutch, meet you in Cali Aug. 9. I'm so AAAMMMMPPED!!!!!!!

i almost puked just watching josh kick ass! so, butterfly kip, a little bounce or whatever...that was frick'in awesome...nice work!

Wow! This is some great dialogue regarding technique vs competition.

Firstly, I have yet to attend a cert and I can't wait till I do. That being said, there is not a video that I do not watch. I am an "old" Phys. Ed. Student and the science and coaching and training in general is very interesting.

Secondly, I laughed as I first started reading this thread because I remember the clip of coach talking about "perfect technique vs. racing for time". The more you improve your time, the less impressive the technique (or form) begins to look. What we strive for is the excellence of execution. (My one jealous gripe is coming...just wait) You ask any competative athlete as he/she wins the game/event/contest, "are you happy with what you did? Can you improve?" We all know the answer. If not, ask a friend or high level athlete next time you meet one. This is why we practice and this is why we compete. It's a Ying/Yang thing. One cannot exist without the other.

OK...here comes my whine!:

Let's talk about "lever advantage!" I'll complain jealously because of watching people doing, for example, thrusters. I'm 6'2" and when I touch my butt to a ball, my legs are below 90 degrees. Also, I have to travel farther when doing my effortless (yes I being sarcastic) kipping pull ups. From what I have been seeing, it appears that if you were to build the "ultimate cross fit athlete" he/she would be approx. 160-170 pounds. That area seems to provide for the best mass to strength ratio resulting in fantastic times. My only solace is that I am happy with my overall strength. I can hold my own for an older guy. I really noticed the results in my Jiu-jitsu when I made the move from power lifting to cross fit. Even on a bad day, I very seldom experience fatigue like my training partners.

That being said, I'm still jealous of the faster lever advantage!

Sorry for the rant all. Good chat!

M/50/162
Video, I salute you.
Ret. MCPO CAV
CFJAX

my best fran time so far is 7:44 and it is often a lot uglier than josh's here and by that i'm reference his chin reach which is undeniable. so we both have a few ugly pull-ups big deal, the met con stress in my opinion outweighs this (thats why i kip and dont do strict, cuz of the met con).

with that said it seems there is a race for the sub 2 min fran going on here. who will be the first? also much like the strict shoulder press in the CFT there should just be some rules put into place like the leaning too far backward. if a judge says the chin was reaching too much it doesnt count.

Did Fran instead of FGB because I didn't have the tools for FGB and I just got my crossfit T-shirt (there's something special about putting that thing on, it's like a jersey, it gives a warm fuzzy feeling mixed with complete confidence).

As for the video of Josh. Let me first say that his Trident impresses me more than his 2:02 Fran.

Now for my critique, which will inevitably be critiqued......I'm calling B.S. on that Fran time, and not because of the butterfly kip which I now like (I'm such a hypocrite) or the definite bouncing off of the ball, but because the ROM was horrendous, Fxd/t=power, and there lacked a ton of D. So less distance means less power which is decreased work capacity and that is the "holy grail of fitness." Now form goes to crap when your fine motor skills go to crap, that's for certain, but ROM was a problem from the beginning. Then again maybe my point is completely invalid. My FRAN today was a 5:18):
....and this was only my second Fran and it was a PR by 2:30.....

Bridges is about to do work at the games

I wish I got a hug every time I did Fran :(

Nice work Josh, and congrats

41deuce 30/M/5'9"/170

Well crap I just realized I didn't give myself the one minute rest between rounds on FGB LOL!! Went straight through the whole way. Surely my crappy 224 would've been 450 then ............. okay I'm being modest....probably 500.....

I don't think anyone is doubting these freaky fran times are awesome. Who is doubting their athleticism and ability? However, in this pursuit of time, things are getting lost. I like to see form and the closer to perfect the better. I agree presses should be finished. I agree the chin should clear the bar. That bounce on the ball DOES make a difference. The flexing pull-up bar DOES make a difference. Since when are performance rules so flexible? At what point do times lose some meaning because the guidelines are just too hazy? To me, there is nothing better than finishing a workout knowing in my mind I did every rep. right. There are no questions or doubts. Yes it was a minute slower but worth every second.

WOW! 2:02 Fran time! Awesome job Josh, you are amazing!

#28 Sameer,

Thank you. I should have said work capacity (i.e. power).

People, please respond to what Matt_in_Oz has actually written and not what you make up.

He's not saying anything for or against the kip/ butterfly kip. He's simply saying that the improved times are probably more a product of a more efficient movement as compared to better athleticism/ fitness.

41deuce, so far, is the only person to actually respond to what he wrote.

I'd like to get involved in the discussion, but I something else to mention so I don't want to dilute my message.

www.undergroundfitness.com

Has anyone else checked out this guy? I sent him an email about crossfit and got a very... inquiring reply, as though he didn't know much about it, despite operating in san diego. I did my best to inform him, but I would appreciate if others would keep an eye on his site and/or email him with advice.

(it's clear his site is new and you can reliably contact him directly through the web email)

Josh,

Congrats on BOTH amazing achievements! Wow!

Thanks!

#21 Greg - thanks for divining God's will for us, and exactly how he handles each individual's sins. I can never figure that out, Job confused me.

#46 bingo - Always enjoy your input. Reading Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and same story with the Federal Govt deciding what's the what.

McGovern decides that in order to get re-elected he needs publicity, picks obesity, finds "experts" who are all in agreement that low-fat diets are the way to go, publishes a committee report, then divvies out grants to those that agree. Wham! Billions of dollars of US Taxpayer $$ pouring into research that is based on a false premise and with no disagreements allowed.

Remind me to put a smiley face on my tax check in April.

I have no issue with butterfly kips or any other kip for that matter. My issue comes up with the chin clearing the bar. I've never liked how people 'reach' with the chin. I think there should be some rule to prevent such giant reaching. Other then that, awesome F-ing time!

I was in Seattle when I heard the "HIV is not AIDS" line for the first time...Stephan Lanka if I remember correctly. Sure enough, his site is still up:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index/slanka.htm

Bingo- It's interesting that many of the geneticists/molecbiologists find the connection ambiguous. I'd forgotten all about the topic...I wonder if it's all caused by gluten ;)

I think someone linked to the piece I did on the butterfly kip. I think the rules may change for a given movement when we are talking max loading vs max cycle time...it presents some interesting conundrums for what constitutes the "best" form for a given movement.

congrats on the trident. I got mine 24 years ago. the new guys are doing a great job and making me proud to have been part of the teams. keep up the good work.

Josh, dude that was impressive. You can probably shave 5-10 sec getting the butterfly kip locked in. Great job!

That Fran is ridiculous. I remember a WOD we did last week at CFSD. He finished so fast, I thought he was hurt and had to call it a day. Nope.....I was just super slow in comparison. Nice.

Although I am not a SEAL, I thought that some of the verbiage of the SEAL Ethos could readily apply to any CrossFitter, at any level. I was particularly fond of this part:

"I will never quit. I persevere and thrive on adversity. My Nation expects me to be physically harder and mentally stronger than my enemies. If knocked down, I will get back up, every time. I will draw on every remaining ounce of strength to protect my teammates and to accomplish our mission. I am never out of the fight."
SEAL Ethos, paragraph 6

Congrats again Josh. Do work on the savage bad guys.

Adam/Temple Owl

'ROM was horrendous ... lacked a ton of D'

Slight overreaction dont you think?

Impressive effort etc. Not a 2:02 Fran though.

Josh should probably keep his status low pro. Aren't you supposed to be telling people you have a desk job or something? You never know who is watching or reading. Awesome time on your fran. Thanks for protecting my freedom

On the whole kipping/butterfly/strict pullup argument:

The most common argument for kipping or butterfly pullups over the strict pullup is that they allow for a higher power output and therefore are more useful. When people here complain that kipping/butterflykip is cheating, others are quick to say that these athletes simply learned a more efficient way to perform the movement and increase their power output.

I am not sure this argument is valid. We can all agree that kipping/butterflykip/strict pullups use at least somewhat varied muscle groups, correct? What, then, is to stop someone from doing jumping pullups, for example, and counting it as a Rx'd Fran? After all, Power=Work/Time...someone doing jumping pullups would just be doing an even more modified version of the strict pullup, meaning a more varied muscle group. The power output would be far greater considering that the only factor would be a decrease in time...does this satisfy Crossfit's supposed goal of increasing power output? Where does one draw the line in modifying the pullup to decrease Fran times?

All of the nitpicking of technique and critique of form are completely legit for one important reason:

He claimed it.

When you video tape yourself and send it in to be posted on the main site, you're accepting the challenge, entering the debate, and should expect to be asked to defend your actions, form, whatever.

Josh, you are one tough, fit muther f'er...no question about that. Glad you're on our side.

Bravo Zulu Josh

Wow. Dumbest set of articles I have ever seen linked on Crossfit. I used to at least have some respect for the viewpoints and ideas presented but this is just amazing.

#85 Aaron
Look at the second round of pull ups. Numbers 7,9,11,13, and especially 15. The first round was exceptable, and my general concern is with the pull-ups, not the thrusters.

#88 Michigan, well how about instead of looking at this as a power issue, we look at the guys doing the butterfly kip pull ups. They are generally crossfitters that have amazing numbers and times across the board. Most them developed the butterfly kip after being able to do massive amounts of pull ups with the standard kip.

#88- Funny you brought up jumping pull-ups as qualifying for a rx'd Fran. Austin B. and I were discussing this on the way home from the San Jose cert today. We thought it would be funny to film a sub-2 Fran with jumping pull-ups and call it rx'd, but then we both agreed that:
#1- We probably still couldn't do it in less than 2 minutes.
#2- Despite the fact that the jump pull-up is a great developer for the pull-up, it really is not the same as a pull-up because you engage so much of the leg muscles. It is definitely a completely different exercise and can't qualify as a true pull-up. Just my humble opinion.

I am not a fan of the butterfly kip. It is an amazing movement as far as strength, speed and coordination, but it is so damn fast that I see way too much missed ROM when it comes to the chin over the bar. Also, now that everyone is wanting to learn it, I am getting guys that are complaining of sore shoulders and they are tearing the hell out of their palms. Anyone else seeing this?

Adam/Temple owl

Dude, we watched the same video. My thoughts were he missed a few reps in that second set but pretty amazing job, your comments were 'horrendous' etc.

I think you are overeacting. Plain and simple.

Josh, Congratulations on your trident. What an accomplishment! We are lucky to have folks like you taking care of us. Thank you.

Regarding this other conversation- I've had some recent discussion with workout partners regarding some similar issues. I think saying a dead hang pull up is good and kipping of any sort is cheating is like saying slowly lifting a weight from the floor to over head is good and a clean & jerk is cheating. No, it's just efficient. When rowing, you don't come to a complete stop between strokes, you move smoothly and efficiently. Same thing as kipping?

Regarding a Fran- I actually made a complaint of sorts about the sub 5,4 and 3 minute Frans. Then it was pointed out to me that this is like a sprint. Yes, these people can do more weight to stay in that 7 minute range, but it's fun to bust butt and see how quick you can get the rx'd Fran. Fair enough. Sprint it out, and when I can do Fran rx'd, then I'll start sprinting too.

And regarding virtuosity- I actually get quite distracted when I notice people sacrificing technique/accuracy/ROM/etc for speed. I'm a bit of a stickler for technique, so I've been trying to not get too focused on other's workouts and stay focused on my own. Even if someone didn't get full ROM, or whatever, they still busted booty and got in a great workout. I guess, to each their own [workout] and respect to everyone for showing up and getting it done.

In other news, I got a coworker to do her first wod! She did a quick pull up/step up metcon and loved it. We also worked on squats and dead lifts. Hopefully I can order her a big glass of kool-aid tomorrow

#89 jake

i agree. awesome time, chin reach is questionable, as is the medicine ball bounce.

Dear 56 and everyone else commenting on the "argument", I AM NOT ARGUING THAT KIPPING IS BAD. That and the issue with chin over the bar is not what I'm concerned about.

I am saying doing kips (especially fast, butterfly-style kips) is a different movement. People are improving their times without any change in fitness levels. It doesn't make sense!

That being said doing Fran as Josh in 2:02 IS a ridiculously hard metcon workout.....its just different than all the ideas of Fran that I've seen from the last 12 months.

The butterfly kip is a good skill and can be good for timed workouts like Fran or Helen. But i think that the sharp change of direction you get from the traditional kip makes it a more powerful movement. So I think it is a good movement to add in addition to the regular kip, but not replace it!

Suggestion: learn the butterfly kip. Do most of your workouts with the regular kip (thump your chest on the bar). Then when you really want to kill it on a workout, bust out the butterfly kip.

Matt in Oz- I see what you are saying, I think- that the Fran time can be improved by adjusting technique. But I'm not sure I would say it doesn't make sense. Poor technique can slow you down, which demonstrates the other side of that coin, right?

The other day, I did Grace with strict squat cleans, which isn't necessary or rx'd, but it was what I wanted to do. I see people's arguments for doing the power cleans, and I realize my time took a hit for my squat cleans. So I think this is the opposite of using a different kip to speed up my Fran time (and I'd really not like to talk about MY Fran time).

This is a very interested conversation I've enjoyed reading. I look forward to reading the rest of this conversation tomorrow when the East Coasters wake up and join in!

No wonder Steven Low is taking a hiatus from the boards...

Matt mate, I get what you are saying and it is a fair point. There are too many people here who jump on anyone who dare say anything that challenges anything.
You wait, someone will now tell me to go somewhere else if I dont like it.

Couldn't ignore some of the jumbled medical logic here.......

HIV is not AIDS. It is a virus(Human Immunodeficiency Virus) that can lead to a syndrome(Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome). All of the medications these days delay or prevent that transition, and make the syndrome manageable and not fatal-although it is still very dangerous and still does kill.

The most common form of transmission in the US and worldwide of the virus now is heterosexual(man to woman or vice-versa). This is especially true in Africa, where in some countries the life expectancy has been cut in half due to HIV/AIDS.

There are many theories as to why this started primarily in the gay population, but most likely is the 'typhoid mary' effect, where by chance the first person to get the disease was gay, and so it began to spread that way.

As to funding and research for treatment, in the early years it was delayed, ignored, and in general not researched because of the patient population. Research and treatments were completed in spite of politics and the general fears of the people.

As to comparing it to gonnorhea and syphillis, these diseases are still rampant. The main difference is that these two are curable now with simple shots and pills, with no lasting effects if caught early enough. We can only hope that HIV gets to this point soon.

It's good to see all the form standards police keeping a watchful eye on the CF community. I take it as a sign that all of the CF coaches are doing a phenomenal job emphasizing proper mechanics and virtuosity of movement. Without the constant critiquing that our "open raincoat" community allows for and encourages, we would run the risk of permitting gross deviations from functional, efficient movement. As former Senator Moynihan opined, "By defining what is deviant, we are enabled to know what is not, and hence to live by shared standards." And that we do in this community.

But there comes a point where strict adherence to standards retards our primary goal of achieving elite fitness. This same discussion was had after Speal blazed through Fran in 2:05. Tony Budding deftly addressed the issue in this month's CF Journal, noting that "there is no reward for achieving some established 'technique' outside its support of a measurable achievement of work."

As a trainer, I instruct and look for complete vertical alignment at the top of the thruster; I also try to motivate athletes to perform at the margins of their capacity, where form starts to deteriorate. I would never sacrifice one for the other. I'll take a slight deviation in form if it is accompanied by a world-class effort like Josh's. That said, he knows he can do better, and my bet is that he breaks the 2 minute mark soon (had he not lost his rhythm on his pull-ups in the round of 15, he would have done it already).

What Josh and Speal did was amazing, and so far, unrivaled. For those of you that are overly-concerned about form degradation, thank you for keeping the CF community honest, but don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Josh, you're a beast. Great work!

#93 freddy
I'm a fan of the butterfly kip because of the amazing cycle time, but have noticed exactly what you pointed out myself. It is very difficult to keep the rom honest, during a recent pullup wod my partners noticed I was barely clearing the bar, reaching and getting only to nose level as I fatigued, when I paid closer attention to my form, making sure my whole head cleared the bar I tore my hands up pretty good. Lost my whole pinky ring callous on both sides from huge blisters. Done properly, and viciously the butterfly kip is brutal on the hands, and pretty difficult to keep virtious.

I want to see more comments on the AIDS/HIV articles. I read Duesberg's book a few years ago, and found his arguments pretty convincing. I read these 3 long articles and found them very convincing as well. There is a remarkable similarity to his arguments that HIV is not the cause of AIDS and Taube's arguments that dietary fat is not the cause of obesity. There is also a remarkable similarity to the anti-vaccine arguments, and the anti-global warming arguments. It is enough to make your head spin.

His arguments seem entirely rational, and he makes the conventional HIV/AIDS dogma seem ridiculous and quite impossible. He proposes a simple, elegant counter-hypothesis that seems to fit the data, at least as he presents it.

Yet nearly the entire medical and scientific community believe he is full of crap. The only two posts so far on this topic say he is full of crap but offer little or no actual criticism of his actual arguments. The first gives anecdotal evidence from clinical experience, which seems compelling...but does not seem to directly counter his arguments.

What we have here is a conundrum. Should we believe the pariah, the contrarian, or should we believe the mainstream scientists and doctors who insist he has long ago been discounted? Both have a lot to gain by sticking to their guns (although presumably the pariah has a lot less to gain, and in fact has sacrificed a lot for what he believes - his gain may be primarily emotional/moral rather than financial). If he is wrong, why won't anyone do the studies to prove he is wrong? Or have they done so already and he just fails to mention that?

The problem is, I have no idea if his data is correct, or if his hypothesis truly fits the actual data, or if all those huge holes he pokes in the conventional wisdom are really holes at all. I know next to nothing about AIDS and HIV. It is just not my field. I do not personally know a single person who (to my knowledge) has AIDS or is on anti-HIV drugs. I do know one person who is HIV positive, and he appears to be in perfectly good health. And I have no idea whether he is taking anti-HIV drugs.

I'm confused. Can anyone here enlighten me? what are the counter-arguments to Duesberg's seemingly compelling arguments? do they hold water? Who is right here?

#93 freddy
I'm a fan of the butterfly kip because of the amazing cycle time, but have noticed exactly what you pointed out myself. It is very difficult to keep the rom honest, during a recent pullup wod my partners noticed I was barely clearing the bar, reaching and getting only to nose level as I fatigued, when I paid closer attention to my form, making sure my whole head cleared the bar I tore my hands up pretty good. Lost my whole pinky ring callous on both sides from huge blisters. Done properly, and viciously the butterfly kip is brutal on the hands, and pretty difficult to keep virtious.

#93 freddy
I'm a fan of the butterfly kip because of the amazing cycle time, but have noticed exactly what you pointed out myself. It is very difficult to keep the rom honest, during a recent pullup wod my partners noticed I was barely clearing the bar, reaching and getting only to nose level as I fatigued, when I paid closer attention to my form, making sure my whole head cleared the bar I tore my hands up pretty good. Lost my whole pinky ring callous on both sides from huge blisters. Done properly, and viciously the butterfly kip is brutal on the hands, and pretty difficult to keep virtious.

wow...blogging on your blackberry may result in posting the same comment six hundred times. it may also result in throwing said phone across the room when the notice of sever timed out appears over and over :)

Just to be clear, every statement that butterfly pull-ups involve the same amount of work by the athlete as dead-hang pull-ups is wrong. The athlete never stops moving, transferring energy from one pull-up to the next. Therefore, the weight and distance are the same for each repetition, but the energy going into the system from the athlete is not.

"There is a remarkable similarity to his arguments that HIV is not the cause of AIDS and Taube's arguments that dietary fat is not the cause of obesity. There is also a remarkable similarity to the anti-vaccine arguments, and the anti-global warming arguments."

I hate to agree: they're all made by denialists who either don't understand the sciene or cherry pick and misquote studies to support their contrived viewpoints.

This kind of credulous bull is enough to make me want to stop doing Crossfit so as not to be assiociated with it.

the seal guy is obviously very fit, but half of his thrusters don't finish over the top of his head, a few aren't full extension and lots of pull ups are not legal either. so well done for a good time but maybe do it properly next time.

i'm sure he would still get an amazing time if he did it properly, he looks very well trained. makes my 4:10 look very pedestrian!!

Man... thats some time, impressive!

Finn #110 - thanks for the response.

So, what is the science on HIV/AIDS that proves Duesberg is wrong? what are the holes in his arguments? how is he cherry picking and/or misquoting? can you be specific?

If you accept that Taubes is right and the mainstream was wrong about dietary fat and obesity, which seems to be the consensus these days, is it also possible that Duesberg is right and the mainstream science/establishment hypothesis is totally off base? If not, why not?

What are the counter-argument to his theory?

I truly do not have a stake or a side in this argument, I just want to know who is right and who is full of crap.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can contribute something rational, concrete, and logical to either support or refute Duesberg's central argument that HIV does not cause AIDS, but drug use and malnutrition do.

Congrats to Josh for his trident and for superhuman achivement and effort!

Question? Is active shoulders a requisite for a completed repetition of a thruster at the crossfit games?

I would also like to know if full extension of the hips while performing overheadsquats is a necessary for a completed rep, in the same competition?

Best regards

great post Coach

I don't want to be a good Canadian either

I will always be amazed at anyone who is able to do anything after doing 21 thrusters and keep moving so I will never question Josh's fitness.

But to me it is simple, the chin up counts only when the whole goes over the top of the bar. Full extension at the bottom, entire head over the bar at the top. As long as you are always hanging on to the bar with your hands, it doesn't matter how you get there.

"We sleep peaceably in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf." Congrats and thank-you Josh for guarding the gate.

It is sad to see Duesberg's claims posted here, as they have generally been disproved. Even a cursory internet search will turn up many credible critiques of his hypotheses. Christ, even wikipedia does an OK job. I think Crossfit should have the same rules as Irish bars "no politics, no religion" (especially when the claims are as dubious as Duesberg's). Stick to fitness!

Beth and Ely,

Nice picture!!!!

I know you are really stoked now after attending that cert. Talk to you soon.

Josh is the man!

as far as the "Irish Bar rules". I think that is the point, I can't remember where, but I think I read somewhere, that rest day articles are in no way supported/believed by the moderators and that the point is to create a dialogue with people of opposing views thus exercising our brains while giving the CF machine a rest. I don't mean to come off rude, I think that is the intent. Have a good day.

For anyone interested in finding out about the well documented, scientifically feasible rationale for the connection between HIV and AIDS, go to your local library and search in JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine from the late 80's and early 90's. You'll find tons of articles.

That's the great thing about science-you rarely ever prove anything, and you can have a reasonable argument, without emotional involvement. I have no doubt there are some articles and research that question the link between HIV and AIDS, as a physician I have read some. I have also read articles, research, and textbooks that show the links between the two are likely very real. The fact that it was in a book is not what convinced me; it was the facts themselves, and the research to back it up.

I fully admit we may not know the full extent of how HIV leads to AIDS, etc. Enough research has been done, however, to show that it likely does. It's important to balance the heavy, massive, overpowering(intellectually, anyway) body of evidence against the claims of some scientists who have doubts, even if they are nobel prize winners. That doesn't mean they are immune from making mistakes.

If you asked me to say if I believe HIV leads to AIDS, I'd say yes. But, as a physician and scientist, belief does not enter into it. Evidence, decades of research, and my own clinical experience lead me to the most likely conclusion.

I hope those who have questions will have the diligence to seek out your own answers-and not just on the internet. I could start a web page today proposing that crossfit causes AIDS, and it would show up on google searches. Peer reviewed medical journals are not easy to read, but they are the best place to go.

#120 Mike - The rest day topics are to encourage "mental fitness." As such, they are often controversial, and make for very good discussions. If I have time (which is rare nowadays), I typically look up the subject and read up on it further. Most of the time, the topic is something that I know very little about. Therefore, I get to learn something new about an issue that is relevant to the country/world.

If you don't enjoy reading the presented topics, then don't. If you'd rather read about fitness, then check out a new affliate page each rest day, or visit FitZoneRadio, or even T-Nation.

The rest day discussions are very much a part of this community, and I don't see them going anywhere.

Alex

#29 Hey Brett, thanks for throwing me in the middle of this brother:-)

Matt_from_Oz,

I think one of the things that is missed in the discussion about validity of technique is the positive impact that these performances have on raising the bar in the community. I am not a fan of the Butterfly kip, but that fran was unbelievably fast and inspired me immediately to go and try to go faster. I cannot believe the motivation that Josh mustered to run between the bars. It is easy for us to sit back and criticise form when the reality is that the video shows a desire and willingness to push beyond. Josh is raising the bar, so is speal, OPT et al. You know what, those boys can go fast under any conditions.

In the video that Brett (#29) posted I think I had about 40 secs in total of "emotional rest", ie not wanting to pick up the bar because my head was sreaming to rest. I watched Josh and I am totally inspired to have another crack and lower my time because he pushed through those mental barriers.

The reality is that if I lined up next to Josh and he did regular kips, he would still smash me. His intensity is higher than what I am willing to muster. Watching him go that fast

As a trainer, I think it is a more important discussion to consider WHEN we teach/learn the butterfly kip. If we are truly "crossfit" we should have control over our bodies and be able to perform any functional movement (strict, kip, buterfly etc etc, ie be good at them all ... pick and choose as the need demands). Personally, my dislike of the butterfly kip is only that it is a poor movement to teach novice/intermediate. That is, I want my guys/girls to nail regular kipps and strict pulls before progressing. This is the same logic behind having a well developed power movement (eg power snatch) before progressing to the more dynamic full movement (eg snatch).

I think there are some valid issues with his form, but I betcha he watches the vid and is already thinking about how to improve ... that is the nature of elite athletes. The neck reach is potentially dangerous. I agree with what Freddy said about shoulder flareups. However, there are many other reasons why he went fast than just movement style. To imply that it was a somehow "easy" performance is off the mark. I am amazed that he could standup at the end!

Try to do 5 thrusters that quick and see how you feel and whether you can stay on balance ...

cheers,
Matt Swift
CrossFit Brisbane

So the arguement isn't about the legitimacy of the kip or BFK, its switching from one to the other and claiming a better time? (ie better time with no improvement in fitness level??)

Lemme post this one then.....
How do we know that Josh switched? Maybe he's been doing BFK since his first attempt at Fran. If that's the case, has he met "The spririt of Crossfit" as Oz has put to us?
I have a hard time believing that last time he did it, he kipped the normal way, did a 3:05...then had a revelation and ripped off 21-15-9 BFK's in 2:02.

That's an exaggeration of what Oz is saying, yes...switch your technique, better your time. But this isn't something you can do overnight and apply to your work. It takes practice, a LOT of it.

Bottom line, its a different technique, yes, but its the same damn workout. Do you nitpick deadlifters and the weights they pull based on the grip they use?

And lastly, the "Spirit of Crossfit" in my opinion, is about self-improvement, not about showing up the guy next to you. Did you see how happy Josh was at the end? I would imagine its because he beat his own time, not someone else's.

Congrats Josh in all your accomplishments.

For all you wannabe physics guys out there who like to throw out those equations, you are missing a big part of the picture - Momentum.

For a regular kipping pullup you come to a brief stop at the bottom and completely stop your momentum, and must restart therefore you must reignite the up motion yourself. With the butterfly kip you never stop your momentum, but carry it into the next pullup. Therefore, you are in fact doing less work; using momentum on the upswing caused by gravity on the down swing.

There shouldn't be an asterisk next to a Fran with the BK, but rather it should not even be counted.

Good job Josh earning your trident, as I'm sure you have been told you have reached the end of the beginning.

I have a question for the CFIT community. Probably should be in the forum, but I don't much time. I am at a Joint Security Site in Iraq. We have plenty of Proteins, and fruit, but only cereals, and breads for carbs. I have some Zone bars, but what else can I eat for low GI carbs? We only get one hot chow a day, and that usually has a good veggie with it, but what about the rest of the day? I figure fruit alone won't do it, and I know cereals and breads won't either. Anything I can get sent to me. Thanks in advance

Congratulations Matt and welcome to the Teams.

rest day 5k - 20:43

Josh, you are a beast. I loved your video.

I BELIEVE IN JOSH!

It's great to have you on our side. Thank you for your service, and for what you are going to do to protect and defend America.

Congratulations on the Trident. It speaks volumes about how you have lived your life. When given the choice, you disregarded the easy & soft pleasures of American excesses, and consistently chose to work the hard routine. You have forged an incredible superhuman out of yourself. I commend you. You are smart, fast, strong, and your spirit is invincible. You are a legit BAMF. Good hunting.

I have a question regarding the weight amounts used in the WOD. For example with Fran, we're supposed to do 95lb thrusters. is this the bar weight + 95 or bar and whatever weight makes a total of 95lbs?

Unreal Performance Josh!

Looked like you started swinging too much on your butterfly kip. That happens to me alot too, but I would never be able to keep it going like you did!

Congrats!

Matt, that's an accurate observation but according to Coach, the push jerk is a better exercise because it is a greater expression of power (and also allows you to use more weight) due to it's efficiciency. Your point has been misunderstood, but I'm tracking. Where it becomes interesting is in #88, michigan's point, a great extension of the argument and theoretically true.

IMO, just like the theoretical argument over tabata (go all out every round vs. pace yourself for a better overall score) there's no clear-cut answer. The best thing to do may be to mix it up. From where I sit, the biggest problem w/ a 2 min Fran is probably lack of scaling. Scaling works both ways you know! LOL. Let's see it w/ 135# & L pull-ups w/ a 20# vest. That'll teach 'em!

Josh, congrats on your Trident

Subbed 12# Wall balls-heaviest in the gym
75+79+81=235

waisted half my time walking between stations in gym

Awesome

I-6 has said it well again, thanks.

#88 Michigan - the point of the pullup is to allow training in the functional human movement of climbing. If you never 'practice climb' from freehanging by the hands, that is to say always start w feet on firm ground, you miss a key element of variability in training.

Reversibility - Barry's essays pointed this out to me, but it's a key way to analyze this issue. Can people who dead hang also kip? Not necessarily. Can people who kip also dead hang well? Per Coach's comments, yes they can. In fact he points out that his athletes that put primacy on training for the kipping pullup are also fully competitive in dead hangs - I validated this by a recent command dead hang pullup contest. I virtually never do dead hangs (L pullups, weighted pullups yes), but was able to place third amongst a large command in dead hangs even at my relatively large weight.

IOW, kipping is a superior training modality because it provides benefits in dead hangs as well, whereas the reverse is not true because kipping includes coordination/timing/speed/accuracy components which dead hangs don't have.

Only half way through the article and the day will be full of meetings - can't wait to read the rest. The point - the politicization of science - is obvious and fascinating.

Paul

I am in awe of Josh. We are not worthy!

When I was in my late teens to early twenties, I could do strict pullups for sets with a 45 plate strapped to me. But now, in my older age, I tried kipping versus strict pullups and on one I yanked my left bicep pretty good on the down stroke and now I've got a lasting, nagging injury to where it really hurts to do a pullup, especially on contracting the bicep or actual pulling.

Personally, I think younger years of doing stupid heavy and hard bicep routines combined with a hard back workout has left me with elbow tendinitis, and when I tried kipping, it just compounded an already pre-condition. Lesson learned, be careful. Der Jim, right?

I intend on working around the left arm and laying off pullups all together and trying a slow, progressed rehab with full range of motion curling with a band. Hopefully when I go see my doctor, she just doesn't throw in some anti-inflamatories and says rest and no work.

Also, congrats to Josh. Way to go, and way to represent!

Snatch rep 1: 75-75-80-85F-80-80-80

Form on 80# is good. Cannot get 85# but close.

Split J
95x3, 105x2, 110x2, 115x1, 120x1, 125x1

Evening: soccer game
Erin

Since when did people become so critical of others rocking out workouts on this forum? Obviously as others have stated there are many different ways to do pull ups. So regardless of how it is done as long as that chin gets above that bar then your doing it successfully. I mean 2:02 is insane and trust me this guy is not one dementional when it comes to his workouts. I've worked out with him before and believe me this man is an animal. Good Job little buddy and keep on doing work with the Seals.
-"now get wet and sandy bust em"-

COMMENT 25 AMEN BROTHER! Its easy to sit back and ridicule someone, pick them apart , maybe it is fear or jealousy i don't know. I love crossfit and what crossfit means to me is family , dedication , hard work , everyone helping each other to the summit ! Give me your hand we are headed to the top!

Matt_in_Oz: "I am saying doing kips (especially fast, butterfly-style kips) is a different movement. People are improving their times without any change in fitness levels. It doesn't make sense!"

You are defining "strength" by a different definition than CrossFit uses and so getting a different answer. In Crossit strength is the "productive application of force".

Go watch the
"Productive Application of Force, Pt I (CFJ Preview)"
in the exercises and demos. In on of the videos Coach talking about this very thing.

congrats Josh Bridges!

Those are two incredible feats!

Let's see....
We have "Fran", we have "Heavy Fran", yesterday on the affiliate page we had "Hungover Fran". Do we need to divide even more into a "Kipping Fran" and a "Dead Hang Fran?" Where does it end?

Nice job Josh!

pullups = pulling movement up & down
JB's Fran = 100% Legit
100% = Performance Monster

I knew it was only a matter of time before a Frog started setting the standards!

I emailed a former employer of mine, Dr. Joseph Berger, who is chairman of the neurology department at the University of Kentucky regarding today's articles. He spent a significant amount of time in the late 80s and early 90s researching the neurological aspects of HIV/AIDS, part of which included an enormous 8-year longitudinal study of HIV-infected patients (I know this because my job last summer involved going through ALL of the involved case files by hand) and the incidence (or lack thereof) of AIDS symptomatology within that population. His prompt and succinct reply to me (and I quote): "Total bull$@#%."

Congratulations on the trident.

Congratulations on the Human Turkish Get-Up. (How do you critique form on THAT?)

"He that to what he sees, adds observation, and to what he reads, reflection, is in the right road to knowledge, provided that in the scrutinizing the hearts of others, he neglects not his own." - Caleb Colton

Happy rest day!

Josh, great work.
My thoughts on form:
Pull ups - kipping, butterfly or strict-chin over the bar, full arm extension at the bottom.
Trusters-ass hits the ball, full hip & arm extension and bar over midline at the top.
Josh was reaching with his chin on some pull ups, especially on the last few reps on the rd of 15. But he was also too far over on others. He'll beat this time when he is more consistent.
His thrusters were all legit. I stopped the video at the top of quite a few reps and he had full arm & hip extension and the bar was over the midline.
Again, great work Josh.

#140 And #141
I couldn't agree with you guys more. This dude finished with a time 99% of people on here couldn't compete with. Who cares how he did it. Form this and form that, cry about it!!! If you have a problem then learn how to do the kipping of butterfly pullups and make yourself a new time. Then you can see how much of a beast Josh was for rocking a 2.02. Stop being ridiculous it makes you sound jealous.

Additional thoughts on the articles, prompted by Kevin #102, #121 and Allen #105:

Kevin, I am largely in agreement with your post at #121, and I think a re-reading of my post at #46 will reveal just that. I am not qualified to review the virology/microbiology/immunology involved in the core of the argument. But, as I said, the results that have come from the initial "detective" research you mention in JAMA, etc. and the treatments that HIV-directed treatments that followed have turned AIDS into a manageable chronic disease in those who have access to the anti-viral Rx. Allen, this is what I mean when I say that the author's work does not explain the "black box" results of HIV RX = No Death from AIDS.

Kevin, you will note my very careful and deliberate use and placement of the terms "GRIDS", "HIV", and "AIDS" in this post. I think you will find, if you read it carefully, that my usage of these terms is equally purposeful and deliberate in #46, and that you will find nothing "muddled" about my particular use, or my understanding of the science/medicine or history involved.

I take issue with your characterization of my comparison with gonorrhea and syphilis. Please re-read my post. I do not compare the disease AIDS with gonorrhea and syphillis I compare and contrast the public health response to these diseases. Yes, gonorrhea and syphillis are very treatable and cureable with antibiotics, but it is STILL mandatory to report cases to the CDC and to attempt to alert sexual contacts in order that they may be treated. It is STILL illegal to alert sexual contacts when a diagnosis of HIV positivity is made. HIV/AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease, and this politically motivated deviation from established public health norms prior to present day treatment regimens clearly resulted in unnecessary loss of life.

I further disagree that research into the cause of GRIDS/AIDS and a subsequent treatment was dramatically delayed and that it occurred DESPITE political barriers. The initial article on GRIDS was published in JAMA in 1985. At the time it involved a very small number of individuals in a very well-defined group. Research to discover the cause was quite rapid--I believe that HIV was described within 2 years. Funding for research for a cure was disproportionate to the prevalence of the disease at the time, and was such due to the political pressure brought to bear by the organized Gay lobby. As it turns out the global reach of the disease was much, much greater than anyone could know at the time since >90% of those diagnosed initially were Gay men in America.

The essential conflict that I discuss and that you allude to is this: would the same amount of funding have been directed toward GRIDS/AIDS given the population in which this disease was first discovered and in which the majority of cases existed in the first 5+ years in the absence of the political pressure from the Gay community? Indeed, would ANY significant funding have been forthcoming without this political pressure? My instinct tells me "no", that very little money would have been directed to this research without the effects of ACT-OUT and others, at least until the international numbers started to come out, or until the 'break-out" into the heterosexual community occurred.

As a physician and a scientist I rejoice in the fact that my HIV/AIDS patients are now living relatively normal lives. But I lament the process that directed so many funds toward this disease at the expense of diseases that affected (at the time) so many more people, some of whom still await a treatment or a cure. I further lament the politicization of the process by which finite research resources are now doled out, and I propose that it is the historical precedent of the GRIDS/HIV/AIDS story that explains this. FWIW I would certainly lament the lives lost to AIDS were it not for this research.

My point was that there is no way to reconcile the two sides of this issue for there is death on each side.

well put Trev

As a molecular biologist, I have to chime in on this one. At first glance, Duesberg does seem very convincing: he has much experience in the world of virology, has a position at a prestigious university and his arguments address the issue at hand. Unfortunately for him, he has decided to overlook much of the literature which demonstrates direct evidence linking HIV to AIDS. If you wish to read a fairly thorough review on the subject, Jon Cohen published a nice set of articles in Science.

One sees this issue appear much of the time in science. There are many famous scientists in the community who have radical views. In fact, this is probably much of the reason they are famous to begin with. Their ability to explore the unknown and delve into areas unstudied is an attribute well valued in research. However, their need to pursue controversial ideas often puts them in an unbacked position they refuse to surrender. As a great scientist once said to me, "Unfortunately, some peoples careers tap out." It seems Duesberg has reached this point in his career.

Not to digress from the good, heated debates going on here, but I just wanted to thank CF for a great, ass-whooping certification this week in San Jose. My body feels more soreness and stiffness than it did after running 31 miles over mountains from Fremont to Livermore. Talk about a lesson in humility. I can't wait to share all the knowledge with other fitness minded people. My sport goal is to be a National Class marathoner and I say with complete confidence that CrossFit will be a huge part in me achieving that goal. Absolutely essential, and the best core work for competitive distance running. Many thanks!

Re Guccione, “AIDS Words from the Front”, 9/93; Lenzer, “AIDS 'Dissident' Seeks Redemption… and a Cure for Cancer”, 5/15/08; Duesberg, CAL Alumni Day Transcript, 3/6/93

Duesberg is a man for all seasons. So the papers from 1993 have enduring value. He brings scientific principles to the world of microbiology. Perhaps those principles are taught at Wurtzberg, Frankfurt, Munich or Basel, but they are omitted in American universities. It is conspicuous by its absence among cosmologists, climatologists, and biologists. Examples on request.

He has swept aside political correctness to step smack in the middle of some high value rice bowls. So he is attacked based on his personality, as if he had supported drilling in ANWAR, or pointed out some error in AGW.

Duesberg's application of facts to his models is exemplary. His critics have not even tried to lay a glove on either his facts or his methodology. So the public is entitled to grant him the presumption that his facts are all correct.

Duesberg applies the epidemiology of viruses, viral diseases, drug use, carcinogens, and carcinogenic diseases to a cryptic model for AIDS among the several at-risk groups. This is ordinary grunt work for a scientist: sorting data into statistically significant populations by manifestation, and applying models to data. Based on these papers and several others, a slightly different story emerges.

(Bibliography: a series of AIDS Case Definitions by the CDC, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1993; the Merck Manual; three articles in the February, 1993 defunct magazine Heterodoxy, by Billingsley, box by the editors, and by Bethell, recommended by Dan MacDougald, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/1993%20February%20Vol%201,%20No.pdf.)

What needs to be brought out of the crypt is a top level epidemiological model for AIDS, incorporating the sub-models relied on by Duesberg. This model would force the pieces of the puzzle to work together, to remedy paradoxes in the data, and to sharpen the definition.

The CDC categorizes AIDS as a condition arising from HIV, and the Merck Manual follows suit. The text of these publications clearly makes AIDS a consequence of HIV. In its Executive Summary of the 1992 report, the CDC defines AIDS as follows:

>> [A] person has AIDS if: 1) he or she has one of the 23 [later amended to 26] AIDS-defining conditions included in the 1987 definition of AIDS, or 2) he or she is HIV-positive and his or her CD4+ lymphocyte count is below 200 cells per cubic millimeter (/mm3) of blood.

The CD4+ lymphocyte count is known more popularly as the T-cell count.

But in the main body, it broadens its definition as follows:

>>The AIDS-defining conditions are distinguishable from other HIV-associated illness because they are strongly associated with severe immunodeficiency, occur frequently in HIV-infected individuals and rarely in uninfected individuals, and cause serious illness or death. A person who has any one of these AIDS-defining conditions and who meets other condition-specific criteria (e.g. , an age requirement, in some cases a requirement for a positive HIV test) is considered to have AIDS.

Hence, in unknown cases, being HIV positive is not required.

Merck interprets CDC as categorizing HIV positive individuals as (A) asymptomatic, (B) exhibiting HIV symptoms, or (C) “true AIDS”, manifesting one of 25 “conditions”. In addition, HIV patients are categorized into three levels according to their T-cell count: >500, 200-299, and <200.

The CDC needs to tighten its definition.

However, a person need not be HIV positive to fit the AIDS definition. A sufficient condition is that he have one of the 26 diseases in the presence of a severely weakened T-cell count. Whether this would have satisfied Duesberg is not answered in the interviews.

Duesberg asks the question, “Is AIDS actually an infectious disease or not?” His answer is quite interesting, and filled with important and relevant science. Nevertheless, the question is rhetorical because AIDS is not a disease. It is, as the name says, a syndrome - a collection of certain diseases (rare in the general population) but common under a specific condition (a chronically weakened immune system). Consequently, it is not communicable! But see bingo #46.

That it is not statistically transmissible frustrates the dialog as much as the facts that it has different manifestations in different groups, that it exists absent HIV (clearly excluding HIV from the definition), and that the prescribed cure, AZT, is fatal.

Would Duesberg accept the definition, underscored as a syndrome, and without the alternative HIV criterion?

Normally, HIV is an innocuous disease, often with little or no symptoms. A normal immune system builds antibodies that, while they don't remove the virus, keep the virus dormant. A question arises not addressed in the interviews whether HIV is more aggressive where the immune system is otherwise challenged. So while cocaine or nitrite might sufficiently weaken the immune system to bring on Kaposi's sarcoma, say, the combination of one of these drugs with HIV might depress the T-cell count even further.

The epidemiological model for AIDS should build on two main conditions in series. First is immune system suppression, followed by the otherwise rare, opportune diseases from pathogens common in the general population. In addition, HIV would lie parallel to the immune system suppression, possibly as a positive feedback mechanism. The drivers for the immune system are drug use and malnutrition, among others. The drivers for the opportune diseases are the weakened immune system plus certain carcinogens, including some drugs. The drivers for HIV include anal intercourse, needle sharing, transfusions, and other sharing of bodily fluids. And there may be feedback from the opportune diseases to further weaken the immune system. When epidemiologists assemble the model and put numbers to the all probabilities, they should be able to reproduce the various infection and mortality rates among the different groups, and quantify the role of HIV.

To the extent that HIV does exacerbate other causes of a weakened immune system, further search for HIV remedies (cures, treatments, vaccines, prevention) would be worth considering. The role of HIV is presently unquantified.

If Duesberg is correct, the feedback of HIV to weaken the immune system would be negligible in the gay male community. In his model, HIV is merely a parallel, companion phenomenon, made prevalent by anal intercourse with multiple partners. It becomes another correlation without being a cause, like CO2 and global warming. HIV suppression may be as pointless as the counterproductive panic to reduce CO2 emissions.

This model deserves to be called the Duesberg epidemiological model.

CO2 is a greening agent, and the worst thing about AIDS is what you have to do to get it.

wow - awesome work on the workout. Form criticisms aside, i still can't manage 21 consecutive pullups, and my cycle time on thrusters is nowhere near that... so watching stuff like that still amazes me even if it doesn't achieve virtuosity in the eyes of everyone.

On the rest day topic - I'm not qualified, but in general we all "know" the cause and we all "know" the link between HIV and AIDS as the public indoctrination has been there for as long as i can remember. And honestly, safe practices in sexual activity and reducing risk taking activities (drug use etc) can do nothing but help the population at large, so i don't have a problem with those recommendations regardless of their impact on the actual issue being discussed.

What does it hurt to hear a counter view, and then factually close the door on the holes in the theories that Duesberg points out? Isn't the point of science to question everything? Or has it become to follow orders of the government and corporations that have other agendas? They are the ones paying the bills after all.

I know this adds nothing of value to the actual discussion on this board, but it's at least interested me enough to search for and try to read anything that would offset Duesberg's points. That's more than i can say for a lot of other rest day topics. :)

mark L 27/m/6'7"/230

Awesome performance Josh. Very impressive Fran time, no matter what sort of kip form you used. Although, not nearly as impressive as the distance you got the last time you performed the "empty keg toss". Talk about an exercise Cross Fit needs to incorporate.

Kudos for posting the links to the Peter Duesberg articles. I have followed his dissident theory on the AIDS "virus" for over a decade and hope that his voice of reason will finally...hopefully, start to be heard.

Long live the Infidel!

Telthorst? Ha ha that is funny stuff. Never seen a man toss a keg better. Except for maybe Jordan.

DC gun ban officially struck down by SCOTUS!

# 125 Brad:

Momentum has nothing to do with work or power. Work can be defined as a change in energy; in this case, potential energy. As long as someone's body moves up the ~2 feet required so that their chin goes over the bar, it will be the same amount of work. That's why I wonder why someone couldn't just do jumping pullups for Fran, since technically they will be doing the same amount of work in a shorter time, making for a much higher power output.

31/m/190

Team workout this morning with CAM, Fountain, & Petty:

Five rounds -

Team 1 (MWade/CAM)

100m Sled pull @ 135# (Each partner pulls 25m at a time)

Team 2 (Fountain (P1) / Petty (P2))

P1 - KBS @ 53# until team one completes all 100m of the sled pull
P2 - Ball slam @ 30# ball until team one completes all 100m of the sled pull

After team 1 completes the sled pull they rotate to the KBS & ball slams. Team 2 rotates to the sled pull...this rotation continues for five rounds.

17:44

I think this would be fun to score. Might look something like team 1 pulls as fast as they can to prevent team 2 from racking up a lot of reps on the KBS & Ball slams. The reps would equate to one point each. Team with the highest number of reps (points) from the KBS & ball slams wins.

I thought that butterfly pull-ups were BS at first then I tried some. They're pretty legit and they let you move through a workout faster.

But in that video of Josh, his shoulders are like 4-5 inches below the bar and he is totally craning his neck. Why not just keep the video on the affiliate site or post that that is not the proper head position during the video at least?

Shouldn't the main site be the place were you see fast times-with perfect form? Butterfly or not, reaching with your chin is not legit.

Congratulations to Josh, don't want to rain on his parade.

Everyone's kip is different; it's a factor of the geometry of your body and what works best for you. Yeah, during set 2 he was fighting a mean swing and every even rep he had to reach with his chin, just because of the angle. But did you notice how high he was getting on the odd reps? WAY over the bar. Average that out, he's fine.

I, for one, will not trash talk someone who could (a) complete every WOD in 1/3 the time I require, at the slowest; and (b) kill me with his pinky.

23m/160/66"

aka P1

We did this workout solely for suck.
We did this workout in pro masks.

Personally, I feel that I made team 2 suffer a bit more than they did me because they sled pull was the sticking point for me. Scoring this workout would relieve that as I would be punished for my weakness. Kudos to MWade and CAM for conjuring this madness.

23m/160/66"

aka P1

We did this workout solely for suck.
We did this workout in pro masks.

Personally, I feel that I made team 2 suffer a bit more than they did me because they sled pull was the sticking point for me. Scoring this workout would relieve that as I would be punished for my weakness. Kudos to MWade and CAM for conjuring this madness.

Yo #163 - What's up with that?

Anyone else wonder where Jub Jub's early post went?

I'm beginning to see a disturbing trend on the comments page, where someone posts an ignorant comment (like Jub's) and it gets deleted. I remember a year ago when I started here, and DA's would post things like "Hey, anyone know a good chest exercise?" or "Why don't people do real pullups here?" to mock what was going on here, and the rest of us would either ignore or try to educate them. With all the debate that goes on on this page, I don't feel the need to have someone's freedom of speech curtailed in order to protect me. Please let the DA posts remain on the page unless they're actually offensive.

Matt -

I know what you mean. Since we use these times as ways to measure fitness, the gain seems artificial. But I think this is great for the element of CrossFit as an actual sport - innovations like this happen in mainstream sports all the time. Dick Fosbury invented a new way to jump over a high bar and changed that sport forever. In the 1800s some dude invented the curve ball. Ditto the dunk, the forward pass, swimming the first lap of a freestyle race underwater, etc. I think the butterfly pullup is Crossfit's Fosbury Flop.

In addition to being pretty fun.

I don't have a wallball so I sub 25# DB thrusters when I do FGB.

Question: Since I can't compare the two, is that a "fair" sub? I typically try to push hard enough on the thrusters where I have to stop it at the peak so it, but probably don't get as much resistance on the catch.

I've used the DB in all my FGB so bar, so I can see improvement, but just wonder how it compares to the wallball.

Any thoughts?

#125 Brad: Keep in mind that momentum is the product of mass and velocity. Velocity is a vector, therefore the direction of the momentum is the direction of the velocity. A force is necessary to change the momentum of an object, this is applies whether it is to increase it, decrease it, or change its direction. In a pull-up, the object (Josh in this case) changes direction at the bottom of the movement. Just like the standard swing kip, there is a split second where velocity will be equal to zero due to the change in direction. Unless you have springs or elastic bands for arms, the idea that the upward phase of the pull-up is fed by gravity is laughable. You are fooled only because Josh makes the movement look so effortless.

Ahh, the BFK controversy continues. Why do the detractors stop with the pullup variation? Why not pull apart the thruster and make it a front squat with a full stop, then a press overhead? Or the sumo deadlift high pull, why not stand up with the weight first, then pull it up to your chin with your arms? In each case the movement is harder right? No, I believe that in all the above movements, BFK included, fitness is being improved. What aspects of fitness? Glad you asked. Let's look at the definition of some of the general physical skills at the heart of fitness: Stamina - The ability of body systems to process, deliver, store, and utilize energy. Strength - The ability of a muscular unit, or combination of muscular units,
to apply force. Power - The ability of a muscular
unit, or combination of muscular units,to apply maximum force in minimum time. Speed - The ability to minimize the time cycle of a repeated movement. Coordination - The ability to combine
several distinct movement patterns into a singular distinct movement. Accuracy - The ability to control movement in a given direction or at a
given intensity. I think the BFK is tailor made for improving all of these skills.
But with all things, there is a time, place and purpose for everything. I agree with most supporters that different variations of the pullup just lend themselves better to certain workouts.

Squib #126-

Fruit is fine for the bulk of your carbs...if you can get adequate levels to support Zone ratios you are set. Dried fruit is a good sub as well, especially while on the move.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but if we want to use the FxD/t, then we can't just use WOD times to determine who is fitter. You'd have to add height and weight as well.

I'm 6'2", and if I'm competing against someone who is 5'8", then I have to move the bar 6 more inches in a thruster, and my body three more inches in a pull-up.

So with Fran (45 thrusters, 45 pull-ups), (45*6)+(45*3)=405 inches, or 33 feet. I move the weight 11 yards further than the other guy. I also weight 200 pounds, so if the guy is 160 pounds, he is putting out quite a bit less power than me, if we get the same time.

So someone with my body doing a 2:02 Fran would involve a more impressive athletic performance than someone who weighs 25% less and is 6 inches shorter.

Right?

As is typical for most Team Guys, Josh is a quiet professional. He won't post his many feats, but I will share just one example:

On 03 JUN, several members at CFSD witnessed Josh crush a "Lynne on the Floor" WOD (max push/pull up's X 5). All I know is that his first round he pulled 54 and pushed 86. He ended up totaling 275/101 for 5 rounds. Butterfly and Kip.....for sure. But, the dude knocked out 54 straight.....and then came back for more.

Like many of you, I travel and get the chance to visit many different CF facilities. In my limited experience, all of the CF trainers I have come across ensure safety in execution (most importantly) and keep everyone honest (I know first hand, because I get called out daily at CFSD!) I clearly remember getting push up's or pull up's "subtracted" or hearing "doesn't count!" during the Trevor Memorial Day Challenge.

I understand that integrity of execution is crucial and is a huge factor in what sets the CF community apart. From what I've seen, no serious Crossfitter (regardless of experience level) is above constructive criticism (or even ridicule!). However, if a certified CF trainer is validating a PR, I am good with it.

Otherwise, we may as well install a "beeping laser foul line" (like bowling) at the top of the pull up bars and maybe little buzzers on the deck to ensure push up integrity. Josh put out and that 2:02 is in the books.

i think that kipping is fine (like most people on this forum); however, it is still important to be highly critical of form. Once a range of motion is defined it must be the gold standard. If range of motion begins to slip and it is not corrected then there is a tendency for this to become the new norm (because it is easier). Continue with this thought pattern and there is the possibility that the original gold standard will be lost entirely.

Here is a video that shows how bad ROM can get for the push press:
Watch the "API Power Training Exercises" @ http://www.athleticperformanceinc.biz/videos
(Push Press is at about 1:20)

Hey guys, I know this is an off topic question..

I started the zone 2 days ago, but every meal seems like it is way too much food! I feel bloated and overstuffed for about an hour after I eat and then I am fine. Is this normal? I have been eating 4 block meals.

Thanks guys, I really appreciate the input!

Anyone out there know about any references/forums/threads or literature on how to establish or what is the suggested breathing pattterns/techniques for different exercise types? Thx in advace

If butterfly kipping requires any of the following and doing it reduces one's Fran time, then it's a perfectly legit method of measuring an increase in fitness (as defined by CF).

6. Speed – the ability to minimize the time cycle of a repeated movement.

7. Coordination – the ability to combine several distinct movement patterns into a singular distinct movement.

8. Agility – the ability to minimize transition time from one movement pattern to another.

I finally got to see the video, that's some hard work going on there!

#177 Don

I wish I had the same problem, I started two weeks ago and I am on 4 block meals and feel like I am still hungry after my meals though I know I get to eat in another 2.5 hours so that tides me over. Look up Crossfit Journal 21, I think it says that you may feel like it is too much food. Personally I feel if you are getting overly full it is probably too much and maybe you should ratchet back to 3 block meals and increase the blocks elsewhere during the day with more snacks or increased block snacks. Just my two cents, check the book and message boards for more in depth discussion.

so regarding todays articles, the scientist in question is very much contradicted by the evidence, both clinical and labratory, published in the scientific literature.
It is also very true that a direct link between HIV and AIDS has not been proven, but as someone pointed out earlier in science it is very hard to prove anything. I argue that using scientific method we can only disprove hypotheses not prove them. The arguments however reminded me of a quote in a book (really good book by the way called what we believe but cannot prove I recomend to anyone) it goes as follows (i'm paraphrasing by the way as I don't have the exact quote).
I believe in the electron. I can't prove its existence but I can conduct experiment after experiment to support the hypothesis that they exist until only a complete idiot would disagree.
And if you still don't believe in electrons I have a nice stun gun here that I can shoot you with.
I guess this kinda sums up my opinion on the articles.
There is no proven link but all the evidence points to there being one and it is very strong.

Few thoughts.

First, it seems to me Duessburg's thinking is quite clear, even syllogistic.

What kills people is a disease that would normally not occur, absent a "short circuit" in the immune system.

HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient for this immunodeficiency.

HIV is a virus that passes from mother to child, and consequently cannot be intrinsically harmful, or it would perish.

Viral infections have known trajectories which are made necessary by evolutionary imperatives. If they don't survive, they don't replicate. They only survive if they don't kill the host, or if they are readily communicable. HIV, if it is malignant, only appears to be malignant in certain circumstances, and the manifestations of such malignancies appear highly context and circumstance dependent.

At a minimum, then, there appear to be environmental variables which are potentially knowable, and the control of which will control the expression of the HIV virus.

Such variables can be tested for without undue difficulty or expense, but this is not being done, for reasons which appear to be political, and not scientific.

I remember the big scare about HIV breaking out into heterosexual populations. Given the parameters of the paradigm--an infectious viral disease transmitted through body fluids--this was a very logical position for the CDC to take. This was their operative hypothesis.

And that hypothesis was wrong. In America and Europe, only certain segments of the population do the sorts of things needed to suppress the immune system sufficiently for immunodefiency to set in, presumably often but not necessarily in tandem with the HIV virus. In Africa, people's systems are weakened from any number of other factors, so the relative prevalance is split 50/50 among the genders, as one expects for any truly viral infection.

For me, it's much more fun to do reading elsewhere, then summarize it. Summarizing forces you to pattern information, which creates greater recall, and enables much greater structure in thinking. For those who think Duessburg is wrong, I'd be curious what specific aspects of his argument you fault.

181- JC

Thank you for your advice, and I will definitely read up on CFJ#21!

Re comment #32

Strict pullups are not an isolation movement.

The muscles involved:

Latissimus Dorsi, Brachialis, Brachioradialis, Teres Major, Deltoid, Infraspinatus,Teres Minor, Rhomboids, Levator Scapulae, Trapezius Lower and Middle, and Pectoralis Minor.

Re: the video

Let's put aside, for the moment, all that we know of this fine young man (I hope I will be given that leeway--I've made no secret in public or in private of my deep respect and affection for these warriors). Let's pretend that there is a faceless body doing "Fran". Let's agree, because it's the truth, that the WOD represents a mammoth effort and output.

It seems to me that there are two issues afoot, one real and one not. Not real is the discussion of the validity of the BFK (man, I love that abbreviation in light of previous threads!). A PU is a PU is a PU, at least for our purposes here on CF. Chin over the bar. Feet off the ground. Done. It's a dead issue. Like it or don't like it. Teach it or don't teach it. Chin over the bar.

Which brings up the real issue which is countable reps, both on the thrusters and the PU. If we look at the classic Greg Amundsen videos of "Fran" we see many thrusters in which the rep is completed in front of the frontal plane. For the CF sprints involving thrusters Greg's videos have long been (rightly) used as the acceptable standard. This removes the issue of shoulder flexibility as a disqualifier on these WOD's and leaves the elbow lock-out as the defining factor at the top of the thruster. Did the athlete complete each thruster using this definition? IMO pretty much yes.

Chin over the bar, however you get it there. We get two views of the WOD, one conveniently from the side. There are a number of reps where the athlete clearly does not achieve chin over the bar, some as a result of a pronounced swing, others just a little short.

All other criticisms (bounce off of ball, spring in bar) are quibbles that are inconsequential, the equivalent of background noise. Guilding the lily, as it were.

We can therefore say of this anonymous athlete that his effort is monumental, that his speed is off the charts, and that the amount of work he did was simply awe-inspiring. If we care about such things as "world records" in our benchmark WOD's it will be necessary to establish simple standards that allow innovation and evolution. In this example we see an attempt at a world record that falls just a few PU reps short of being accepted as such.

Since this is not an anonymous athlete we do get the chance to be introduced to Josh, to marvel at his athleticism, and to both thank him for his service and wish him Godspeed on his journeys.

Let me first say that I am in awe of Josh's performance. I will be elated the day my Fran time reaches half Josh's by any means whatsoever. You are a testament to human performance and we’re all blessed to have you fighting to protect our country.
I would however like to chime in on the form debate.
As far as I remember, the rules for the exercises are as follows:
Pull-ups: Full extension of the arms at the bottom, chin over the bar at the top.
Thrusters: Squat below parallel at the bottom. Full extension of knees, hips, and arms at the top with the weight supported overhead.
These criteria are simple and leave room for application of any technique desired, as long as they are met. The butterfly kip, when properly performed, meets these criteria.
Taking a completely purist view, there are some issues in this video with the adherence to the basic criteria, which has been pointed out repeatedly above. Those pertaining to the pull-ups, I think, will quickly be overcome by Matt's becoming more proficient with the butterfly kip.
There are also issues with the thrusters not reaching the full locked out position overhead before beginning their descent. I do this when focusing on cycle time, as do many of us.
This issue raises an argument against the BFK. Taking the bar to full extension in the thruster does not significantly increase the range of motion through which the weight must travel, but requires that the weight be momentarily supported at rest overhead. This constitutes an increase the total amount of work performed. Not supporting the weight at rest overhead allows the athlete to use gravity to his advantage, just as the BFK allows the athlete to use preservation of motion to his advantage.
If it's to be considered illegitimate to not lock out the thruster, should it not by the same reasoning be considered illegitimate to not actively overcome and reverse momentum in the pull-up?
All debate over technique aside, the criteria as they stand are straightforward. If anything, the only thing I personally would like to see changed in the criteria is that the pull-up should end with the nape of the neck at a level above the bar, not the chin. This would be much harder to self-spot, however.
It is my opinion as well that the use of a medicine ball or any other piece of equipment as a gauge for squat depth should not be allowed when going for PR times. Anything more than the slightest touch of the surface transfers energy into the ball. This and the resultant rebound decreases the amount of work performed. The same is true of the springy pull-up bar.

Note: I’m debating for debate’s sake. I in no way mean to denigrate I’ll repeat what was said above: a 2:02 Fran is a 2:02 Fran.
WOW!

On pullups: it seems to me that we need to differentiate between CrossFit, the sport of fitness, and CrossFit, the system for developing physical capacity.

Ideas like range of motion, and proper technique have, to me, two basic purposes. Range of motion in this case is the equivalent of a line in sports. All sports, when you really think about it, are fully artificial. Playing Football (the real kind) will make you faster, stronger, more agile, etc., but there is nothing "real" about the game. The lines exist at ten yard intervals by convention. The ball is shaped the way it is by convention. Whether or not a ball "broke the plane" is, by convention, determined by a referee, but the definition is clear and set down in advance.

CrossFit, the sport, does in fact need rules in order to foster clarity with respect to what does and does not constitute proper execution of whatever movement is in question. As happens in all sports, there will be calls which initiate "spirited discussion", but that is the nature of the beast. As a starter, we could define a pullup as any movement in which the arms are fully extended at one end, and the chin over the bar by any amount at the other end. We could, after discussion, determine that the head needs to not be tilted. We could put pressure sensors on peoples chests.

Net net, whatever we agree on, that is the rule, and as long as everything sticks to it, there is clarity as to results. The exact formulation is entirely negotiable.

With respect to CrossFit, the system for developing physical capacity, the real world is the lab. If you have enough physical capacity to do whatever you need to do, then you are good. If not, then you weren't good enough.

For soldiers, one or two inches one way or the other on a pullup bar really doesn't matter. It doesn't affect in any major way the larger fact that a tremendous amount of fitness was demonstrated, as we saw here.

This is an important distinction. I will add, that I think a lot of this "proper technique" stuff comes from bodybuilding. Pullups, for example, are a lat developer. Do a lot of them in strict form, get a good pump, eat a lot of protein, inject something or other, take a few pills, get a tan, and you got some good back pictures. The "work" being done is pumping the muscles, not necessarily improving work capacity.

Does anyone want to argue that a tractor is not an improvement over the ox and plow? Is doing more work with less effort and more brainpower a bad thing? It seems silly to me to focus on improved techniques generating better times, unless such techniques can be shown to diminish actual development of work capacity, and I have not seen that. In fact, BFK appear to do a good job of devloping shoulder flexibility to me.

Due to some issues with tendonitis, I have been doing strict pullups, and one immediate thing I noticed when I did Isabel the other day is that the bottom swing forward on a kip, and the overhead squat position at the bottom, are nearly identical. I noticed it because my flexibility was awful, as I hadn't been doing enough OHS otherwise.

All this stuff interrelates in ways that aren't always immediately obvious.

RE: AIDS/HIV - This link was imbedded in the Discover Magazine argicle on Duesberg, and makes some interesting counter points:
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/266-5191-1642a.pdf

some interesting quotes:
"This investigation [the Science 3-month investigation] reveals that although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses."

“In the beginning, it may have represented honest scientific argument. ... Now it has assumed some kind of
cult status. It’s attractive to people who believe the establishment is always wrong. This would be the biggest example of all.”

Personally if I have to lay a bet, I generally go with the consesus. If I am diagnosed with HIV tommorow, and I had to bet my life, I would definitely go with the scientific consensus.

#174 Mike - I've always thought somewhere along the same lines. I'm 6'4", and an old workout buddy was 5'6"; if we squatted the same weight, wouldn't I be doing more work? Same for pull-ups (whether dead hang, kipping, or butterfly, as your preference may be)?

#21 Greg X-5339: "I have read other research that suggests the possibility that AIDS, or GRIDS, is caused by a break down of the immune system from all the bacteria absorbed while practicing sodomy."
If this is true, wouldn't anyone who regularly engages in sodomy (read: anal sex) be at the same risk of developing AIDS? Can we get some kind of citation for this?

"But no engaged in this form of perversity wants to be told that their lifestyle choice is immoral, let alone the sole cause of a disease that has now spread into the heterosexual community."
So married couples choosing to engage in "this form of perversity" are living immorally?

"Whether AIDS/GRIDS is caused by male sodomy or not, one fact remains true, it is spread that way."
It's also spread by heterosexual sex. It's also spread by blood transfusions. It's also spread by certain types of drug use. Your point?

In re: #188

Excellent observation on the differences between CrossFit as a sport and CrossFit as a training method.

My opinion is that the standard kipping pull-up is superior to the BFK in this context, as it requires more work to be performed by the body. I find it strikes a better balance with the 10 components, where the BFK relies slightly less on expression of strength, flexibility, and power.

Reto,

I read that article. I missed the substantive commentary on his ideas. I did note the frequent appeals to authority. I didn't miss this:

"Although AIDS researchers have challenged
Duesberg’s arguments in scientific
journals, public forums, and the media, these
rebuttals by and large have been breezy. The
consensus strategy has been benign neglect.
Duesberg’s 76-page AIDS opus published 2
years ago in Pharmacology and Therapeutics
made nary a ripple in the scientific community.
When the mainstream AIDS community
does reply, the responses sometimes
have an ad hominem edge. In a 1988 Science
article, Gallo compared Duesberg to “a little
dog that won’t let go”; Nobel laureate David
Baltimore called his ideas “pernicious.”"

Now, if his ideas are so bad, why doesn't someone definitively refute him on an empirical basis? It shouldn't be so hard, right?

excellent website for HIV/AIDS link and answering critics of link, with references
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/hiv-aids.html

Finn #110,

Totally agree with you. I think this is all part of some Ayn Randy ideal where revolutionaries are lionized, whether they're crack-pots or spot-on. Hero worship, in a certain sense.

Perhaps the saddest note about this (although only from Wiki) is that the HIV+ denialists who bought into Duesbergs hoo-hah died of ... AIDS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#Death_of_HIV-positive_denialists

Been almost 24 hours since FGB ... still don't feel right. Thank goodness for rest days!

For some reason let myself get lazy and skip my workout yesterday, so I punished myself today with the '1775' workout from Gym Jones:

4 rounds of:
17x burpee to pullups
75x squats

Took about 24-25 minutes, though would have been less if I didn't have to walk to the other side of the room between each round to get water.

And to think... 2.5 months ago I couldn't even do more than 1 true pullup!

Another early post today would be awesome. Plenty of time to rest when you're dead!

"HIV is a virus that passes from mother to child, and consequently cannot be intrinsically harmful, or it would perish."

That's a specious argument. The fact that it's transmitted from mother to child has no impact on whether or not it's intrinsically harmful. Ebola can be transmitted from mother to child quite easily, and it's intrinsically harmful. Mother to child transmission is not how these viruses (virii?) survive.

This review of Duesberg's "Inventing the AIDS Virus" addresses several of the claims he makes in the posted article:

http://www.aidstruth.org/inventing.php

that was not even close to a legit time, he got ZERO reps on thrusters and half of the "pull ups"
I'm all for increaing performance, but not at the expense of form. COMPLETE ROM is more important than the speed in which you "complete" the exercise.

not to mention that pull up bar...what a joke. a pull up bar should be static.

COACH!

Wow, this is so cool:

http://games.crossfit.com/partners/introducing-the-hopper-deck.html

What better to keep around the garage, barracks, or post? Play a hand or few, go crush a WOD. Really, really neat idea!

Everyone go check out the link to the CF Games site. The Hopper Deck, coming soon!

IDEA: Every one pick up a few packs and send them to our soldiers who are deployed with a gift box. Its an awesome combo. DO IT! Who's in?

192, 193, 198: I've done the work for you in summarizing Duesburg's arguments. To do that, I had to do some reading, then some thinking. Please step up to the plate and provide something other than the recurring refrain that "top scientists all agree . . .". He addressed that in his speech, noting that funding and habit influence people. People have no trouble believing Christopher Monckton and Vincent Gray are bought and paid for, but become overt hypocrites in reverting to claims of scrupulous purity of Science when the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak.

#197: Before I respond, I'm going to give you an opportunity to actually read the article (I read the Cal one), and then revise your objection if you so choose. He covers the issue in detail. I merely summarized it. If you don't understand why your objection fails, I'll respond in a few hours, hopefully, tomorrow certainly.

Barry #182:

The initial epidemiology research on the underlying cause for GRIDS/AIDS took off when one of the investigators realized that the spread of the disease or syndrome was very similar to Hepatitis B. Hence the search for a virus. The desire of commentators both within and outside the medical community to find some specific behavioral mandate for the spread of the disease, and in the author's case to prove that HIV or any other infectious agent is not a cause but a parallel entity, is very hard to reconcile with the existence of individuals who contracted the syndrome and died after receiving tainted blood or blood products (Ryan White), inadvertant injection in a medical setting, or through vaginal intercourse.

The history of the quite reluctant search for a cause and a cure in the late 80's and early 90's really makes the position that the present understanding of the etiology of AIDS as some grand conspiracy quite difficult to believe. Yes, there are certainly large pharma companies who are now making profits, but that did not at all appear to be a reasonable expectation in the early days of this syndrome.

So I would offer that the burden of proof is on the author, and the imperative to garner support and supporters rests on his shoulders. It may seem like a cop-out ('cause I was ALWAYS gonna punk out on you and just discuss this one from memory!), but the results of anti-viral treatment into the black box and survivors out continues to be very compelling.

I hadn't had 400m sprints incorporated into my workouts in awhile so I cherry-picked the Crossfit Overload site and blasted out:

50 HSPU (no kips)
400m Run
50 Ring Dips (no jumps)
400m Run
50 Pushups
400m Run

in 18:11. I was roasted at the end of it but i could have been faster had my ring dips been stronger and faster but then i just got rings finally on Monday so I was pleased with it.

I lied ... I actually cherry-picked Crossfit Fairfax. credit where credit is due.

Attended my first Cert in San Jose and was better than I could have imagined. If anyone has any desire to attend I would strongly urge you to do it.

We had a great cadre of instuctors, Nicole, Jolee, Adrian and the great Freddie. Thanks to Freddie's coaching I was able to get my first muscle-up!! Nicole's lecture on nutrition was outstanding.

The only downside, I can hardly walk through the airport on my way home. Great workouts were provided. Good luch Jolee on this years Crossfit games, you looked ready to win again.

Bingo,

What appears to me--not having studied this in detail, but having read the article, and having been a regular consumer of media for 25 years--most likely, is that HIV can contribute to a progressive immunological deficiency, but primarily in cases where the immune system is already depressed. Hemophilia would contribute to such a suppression, as would various drugs, as would malnutrition.

The HIV plus context equation would make sense of the apparent correllations between HIV and the specific type of AIDS to which it leads.

For example, it would be possible to test the popper plus HIV hypothesis in a lab with animals. This would not be difficult, but it apparently isn't being done. It isn't being done, because he can't get funded, because he isn't taken seriously. He isn't taken seriously because he hasn't demonstrated lab results, and he can't generate lab results without being taken seriously.

This is how "science" is done in many fields. God help the amateur with a good idea. If there's no money in it, he's got no hope.

Did some 1 rep clean and jerk work:

95, 105, 115, 125, 135, 145, 155(f)

Miranda 801
F/25/135

With all the debate about kipping vs strict pulls today I have a question. Are jumping pulls ever rx? I know on the filthy fifty it is ok. If the idea is to get your chin above the bar and the other types of pulls are allowed, why not jp's too?

I'm with lax004, I think kipping is a slippery slope...if the amount of work is what is all that is important, then jp's are the same amount of work as kips seeing as you as traveling the same distance.

F/38/120

Missed "CrossFit Total" from last week so did today.

Back Squat 175
Shoulder Press 70
Deadlift 185 (PR) Almost got 195. Next time.

Meant to be working out by now, but had to hound a deadbeat for some money.

However, on the plus side, I read this excellent article, which is relevant to this topic:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433436381900681.html

They have coined the term "yellow science", in a direct allusion to Yellow Journalism.

". . .one does not need an advanced degree in natural science to understand that whatever follows the phrase "most experts agree" or "no one can measure the exact effect but" is not real science. In fact, if there is no possible way that a statement can realistically be tested, it probably fails to meet the standards for any professional community and is of no real use to the public."

I read this excellent article, which is relevant to this topic:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433436381900681.html

They have coined the term "yellow science", in a direct allusion to Yellow Journalism.

". . .one does not need an advanced degree in natural science to understand that whatever follows the phrase "most experts agree" or "no one can measure the exact effect but" is not real science. In fact, if there is no possible way that a statement can realistically be tested, it probably fails to meet the standards for any professional community and is of no real use to the public."

#3 I Am? That's too freaking cool to be true.. isn't it?

Arizona IS awesome. The weather, the scenery and the people.

10 am Deadlift Therapy.
Played around with sets of 5 about 100# off my 1RM.
I'm sick of my back rounding when I lift. It's time to get back to basics and get myself a stronger, more solid, prettier deadlift. I'm committed to it.

I'll row a 5k at least after lunch.

The Zone is giving me all sorts of energy that I don't know what to do with. Loving it.

#212... if your comment about the nice weather came at any other time of the year, I think I would hate you. Luckily, it's been amazing here lately in Chitown. People probably think I'm crazy when I'm doing a WOD in the parking lot behind my apartment when they show up to park for the Cubs games.

Ahhh, to hear a Fukudome chant from your balcony... pure bliss.

Hi guys

Kempie is making his way over to the Cali for the CF games. The journey is going to take him a couple of days as he has to make a couple of stops along the way.

In his absence I will pick up from where he's left off, preempting any newbie questions for the wod. He will pick it back up again when he reaches Brand X which should be sunday.

I'm not as articulate as him or many others on the board but I'll have to do at short notice.

Please search Leon R over the next cycle for info on subs etc for the WOD.

Cheers, Leon.

Barry,

The experiments that you mention aren't that simple. Certain compounds which are used as drugs in human beings (beta-lactam antibiotics for example) are toxic to lab animals (in this case guinea pigs). In addition, HIV originates from primates who live with the virus with no adverse effects. As a result, a lab animal infected with the virus is most likely not a good model.

sorry i havent read all of the posts, but have a question on the butterfly kipping, since i cannot do them :(. im not saying anything good or bad about them...just that i havent learned how to do them. when someone does a butterfly kip, it appears to me that alot, or maybe just some of the downward momentum is redirected in a circular motion to help to begin the body driving back into an upward movement.

just curious from the point of someone who can actually do them and experience them for themselves lol.

I work as an ER doc in a city surrounded by 7 prisons and multiple half-way houses. I deal with a lot of HIV and Hep C positive inmates. I also happen to have an honours degree in microbiology and infectious diseases. I absolutely believe that HIV causes AIDS. I know that people will say that inmates participate in lifestyles that predispose them to AIDS - IVDU, tatoos etc. I also see HIV positive patients who contracted the virus through heterosexual sex, blood transfusions or maternal-fetal transmission. I can say that every patient I have seen with AIDS is HIV positive. AIDS is a syndrome with mulitple presentations and yes, poor lifestyle habits will worsen the course of the illness. However, I have seen people who do everything "right" and still develop full blown AIDS.
HIV attacks CD4 T lymphocyte cells specifically. These cells are key in defending against opportunistic infections which is why people with AIDS ( CD4 count <200 or AIDS defining illness) get unusual and often fatal infections. IVDU will expose you to more pathogens and make it maore likely for you to die but that does not change the fact you need to be infected with HIV to develop AIDS.
The issue that frustrates me about these types of articles is that is contributes to the belief that only "BAD" people get AIDS. Which is why the rates of infection among young heterosexuals continues to rise. The gay community got the message about safe sex practices - the rates of HIV infection in that population is declining. Mis-information about AIDS kills people. HIV causes AIDS - I'll spare you the complicated virology and immunology lecture.

PS. I love Sevan!

OK, after reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis I'm pretty convinced that Duesberg is mostly full of crap, and basing much of his arguments on outdated research and cherry-picking. They sound good but don't seem to hold up to real scrutiny. But he may be right that HIV alone is not enough to cause AIDS in most people.

After talking to a medical doctor who worked in Duesberg's lab when she was a student, I'm also convinced that he is self-centered, pompous, abrasive, and extremely argumentative and that is part of why he was never taken very seriously.

Here is what she had to say:

"I was intrigued b/c I know Duesberg fairly well. I worked in his lab at Cal for about a year right around the time of all the controversy with Gallo and when his critics were all attacking him. He really has a strong, argumentative personality and I found him to argue for the 'game' or sake of arguing. Sort of like a lawyer that has to argue to 'win' coupled with the fact that he loved the press attention that I began to and continue to question his ethical calling to find 'truth'.

Despite that, some of his arguments are interesting...what the main recent article doesn't make a big deal about is that he argued that HIV is 'necessary but not sufficient' for AIDS, which is likely true and explains why people get different diseases with the syndrome, why some it is epidemiolocally different around the globe, and why some people have hiv for their whole lives and dont' become sick.. What I see in practice though is that people treated for HIV virus with three drugs, lower their viral counts down to undetectable levels and can then delay onset of immune dysfunction for decades. (we can measure the number of virus RNA particles in the blood directly now, couldn't do it when he made his early arguments, and yes, hiv is in the blood in large amounts and easily identifiable now).

So, I know his heresy, I know his charm. He is very bright, and he may have some valid points, but he is also pompously vain and loves the thrill of attention. Seems he played a calculated wild card for fame, but his counter attack was never validated, and today seems ludicrous. He payed a big price for it."

I've been interested in Duesberg's research for a couple years. I have no background in medical research, but the parallels between the HIV/AIDS hypothesis and other examples of junk science are striking. Since only one person so far has posted anything to rebut the posted articles, let's take a look at the Quack Watch article.
The first point I would make is that the article says researchers have found genetic evidence of HIV in "virtually all" patients with AIDS. Virtually all? What about the other cases? If you can get AIDS without HIV, then what are the other possible causes? Duesberg mentions several possible causes, which have been ignored, but seem to fit with the data and explain why different risk sub-groups exhibit different outcomes.
The article mentions only a few cases of HIV causing AIDS outside of the typical risk groups (gays, drugs users, etc). One of them is the case of the dentist who passed HIV onto several of his patients. I mention this one specifically because Prof. Duesberg goes into thorough detail on this in the articles. In this case, a healthy young woman contracted HIV from her dentist. Her condition was carefully monitored by her doctors. She began her treatment with AZT after coming down with a yeast infection (yes, a yeast infection!). After a few years on the treatment, she was emaciated and died. The question is, did HIV kill her. Or did taking a powerful chemotherapy drug (AZT) every six hours kill her?
I would be curious to know more about the cases Bingo has mentioned, where people are now living longer due to improved medication. Bingo's first statement was that all of his AIDS patients died. 100%. It's seems rational that 100% of patients exhibiting symptoms of various deadly diseases and a suppressed immune system would die.
The next statement is that now comes along an HIV treatment and the patients live. If Duesberg's claim is true, that HIV is a harmless virus, then this finding should not be at all surprising. Prior to the discovery of HIV, you weren't looking at any people who were HIV+, but asymptomatic. You were only looking at people with full-blown AIDS. Your second statement seems to lump these two groups together and then the proof follows that the medication works. This assumption is only true if the previous assumption, that HIV causes AIDS is true. So, let's put it aside for now and look further into whether or not HIV actually causes AIDS. It might also be true that the original treatments for HIV were extremely toxic and the treatment was worse than the virus. It could also be possible that the new treatments are simply less deadly than the original.
Either way, I would like to see someone come up with data that disputes the points Duesberg makes in these articles.

Tyler

Josh,

Congratulations on this milestone. I'm just now finishing Lone Survivor by Luttrell, and I have a new found respect for the SEALs...

Good luck, and wear that trident with pride.

Hooyah!

WOD
3 rounds
10 seated dumbbell bicep curls on a Swiss ball, 10#
Use the purple coated variety if you've got 'em!

The Duesberg articles posted today promote "mental fitness" the way 10# bicep curls on a Swiss ball promote physical fitness.

"critics have not even tried to lay a glove on his facts" C'mon!
Duesberg quote: "drugs can easily explain the American AIDS epidemic and they resolve all of the problems that the virus/AIDS hypothesis has failed to do"
Drug use is associated with a shrinking minority of HIV cases, largely due to successful needle exchange programs.
Duesberg's proposed behavioral causes of AIDS have long pre-existed the emergence of AIDS, and the behaviors in the absence of HIV infection have not been shown to lead to AIDS.

He seems to suffer most from his professional bias as a molecular biologist, in that his most detailed arguments involve the incomplete understanding of the microbiology of the pathogenesis of the disease. It's perfectly possible to determine the cause of disease and appropriate prevention without a detailed understanding of the pathogenesis - John Snow removed the handle from the water pump before the germ theory of disease was established. Until Duesberg can apply his model to ameliorate human suffering from AIDS, he should be dismissed.

not on topic but are there any posters/readers that crossfit in destin fla or nearby. I will be vacationing in destin mid july for a week and looking for a garage, box, park and others to xfit with. I posted messageboard under looking for crossfitters (destin)

#218 Tyler

"Virtually all" isn't good enough for you? Read up on statistics a little bit, with emphasis on confidence intervals. Less than 100% correlation is not equivalent to no correlation.

Slow Mo Row

5k a lame 28 minutes.

My back is tight from the deadlifts this morning. It was starting to cramp up at the end.

Maybe I'll try again later

#125, Brad, writes,

"For all you wannabe physics guys out there who like to throw out those equations, you are missing a big part of the picture - Momentum."

"For a regular kipping pullup you come to a brief stop at the bottom and completely stop your momentum, and must restart therefore you must reignite the up motion yourself. With the butterfly kip you never stop your momentum, but carry it into the next pullup. Therefore, you are in fact doing less work; using momentum on the upswing caused by gravity on the down swing."

"There shouldn't be an asterisk next to a Fran with the BK, but rather it should not even be counted."

I'm an actual physics guy, and you're wrong.

Calvin S (#170) outlines the basic argument. However, if your analysis involves concepts like "reignit[ing] the up motion," I'm pretty sure I'm not going to change your mind, but here goes:

The athlete needs to do work in the vertical plane. That work (force in the vertical plane time distance in the vertical plane) is unchanged by any motion in the horizontal plane.

A simple example on the irrelevance of motion in one plane with respect to another: When a batter hits a fly ball, it leaves the bat with vertical and horizontal velocity. At some point, the ball reaches its maximum height. The time the ball takes to rise to its maximum height and then fall back to its original height is unaffected by its velocity in the horizontal direction.

Joe,
That's true. But the hypothesis is that HIV causes AIDS, not that HIV is correlated with AIDS. Part of the problem is that when cases of AIDS were found without the presence of HIV, they simply created a new classification called Idiopathic CD-4 lymphocytopenia. Idiopathic is a fancy word for "we don't know where it came from". As a result of reclassifying these cases, the HIV-AIDS hypothesis stands undamaged. Falsification is the cornerstone of science, but it's hard to falsify a hypothesis when any data that doesn't agree with it is ignored or reclassified.

Tyler

wow. that vid wuz sick! talk about power output!

today: no rest for the addicted...

26/f/5'2/130#

breakfast: run 45 minutes = 6.1 miles

cfwu

"GI Gran"
21-15-9 for time of:
95# clean & jerk (power cleans)
burpee pull-ups (jump up to grab bar 14" above reach)
time = 14:32

ugh. terrible. altho i did lose some time stopping mid burpee to offer the use of my jumprope to a girl who for lack of one of her own wuz doing pretend jumps. after post WOD flop, she said watchin all that jumpin around wuz impressive, and asked if i wuz training for anything. so of course i wrote down the website for her.

Tyler,

It seems that the evidence that something was ignored is coming from the dissenting side of the argument. Are the problems you see with the HIV/AIDS hypothesis really enough for you to classify the work of thousands of physicians and researchers as junk science? Is it really more likely that all of them are wrong than that they have a slightly less than perfect model of the relationship between HIV and AIDS?

HIV doesn't cause AIDS, global warming is a hoax -- just add in that evolution is unsupported, 9/11 was planned by the government, and the moon landing never happened and I think we might have a Denialism BINGO!

I sure hope thinking you're so smart in seeing through the "lies" of mainstream science makes you feel better about yourselves. I hope sitting in your armchairs and cherry-picking, misunderstanding and misrepresenting facts to try to prove some point provides you with endless enjoyment. Meanwhile millions of professional scientists continue to do work that HELPS REAL PEOPLE and BENEFITS SOCIETY.

Also, posting articles that blatantly support only one side of an issue over and over without regard as to whether the articles are well-reasoned or even consistent with each other is NOT the same as providing stimulating reading for discussion. WHY MUST COACH'S PERSONAL POLITICS BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF CROSSFIT?

I don't think many would dispute Josh is in great shape and put forth a great effort. There are certain points that I don't think are in dispute.

1. His chin did not go over the bar on many pullups
2. The pull up bar had quite a bit of flex too it
3. he was bouncing off the ball
4. He didn't properly extend on many of the thrusters

So the time posted was faster than the time would have been if all of the above was corrected.

I was looking at the performance as being similar to a powerlifter in a bench press contest.

Lifter A performs the bench press with strict for touching his bare chest and then pushing the weight up

Lifter B wears a bench shirt elbow wraps and a belt He bounces the bar off his chest to get the weight up.

They both push the same amount of weight up so it seems there are those on here that would argue they are both equally strong?

I think his real time if done properly would have been around 2:15 so in the grand scheme of things its still an awesome performance just need to pay attention to form.

Tyler:

My AIDS patients, diagnosed with AIDS and previously suffering from any number of opportunistic infections typically seen in AIDS, are now living. They are being cured of the AIDS-related illnesses and they are living relatively healthy lives, albeit in constant vigilence against a chronic disease.

Previously they all died. All of them. 100%. The difference is the modern anti-viral cocktail.

So...AIDS +/- AZT - antiviral = DEAD
AIDS + antiviral = LIVE

It is also true that HIV positive + antivirals = no AIDS, and I agree that this neither proves nor disproves the HIV hypothesis, but that is not what I said in my posts.

#228 Ken: "WHY MUST COACH'S PERSONAL POLITICS BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF CROSSFIT?"

Speaking as someone who oftentimes disagrees with the thrust of the articles put forward, I actually don't have a problem with it. If you'll notice, the instruction is to "post thoughts to comments", not "agree and post how awesome the article is". We're free to disagree with the authors of the article - I often do, as with today's - and bring up relevant arguments and points. That's the point of discussion.
Though on the other hand, Denialism Bingo sounds like an awesome drinking game; I might have to bust it out next time I watch C-SPAN.

#224 Hari
Thank you for your comments.
So the point is a kip is a kip whether a long swinging one or a short butterfly one or anything in between. Hell, sometimes in a series of 21, I might do multiple variations, but the resulting work is the same. Again Josh's effort is awesome and the only reason I see for some of his limited ROM on the pullups is that he lost ryhthym several times, that has nothing to do with the type of kip or average output per rep. Also in regard to the thruster rom I would challenge you to review the videos of Amundson's and Everett's Frans. They are very fast with the thruster and do, like Josh, reach full extension very briefly. His form is not much different from these previously accepted milestone times. Finally, for all you athletes out there, remember we are pushing our limit on every set . Does form degrade some, Hell yeah it does when you are pushing that hard!! If you are at home comparing your PR's and using the same type pullups for each Fran, if your time improves, your fitness is improving! But if you are planning to compete in the Games next week, you better learn to BFK!! LOL

These comments today are like CF for the mind. So much for a restday.

I'm still a good few days behind, but pushing forward and enjoying every minute. Well actually, that's a lie. The pain and the mental stress of being able to finish are sometimes very tough. I have just read #23/#24 and in particular the attached articles and have come to the conclusion that after every WOD I need to attend confessional. Why? because I'm not yet convinced that I do every rep to perfection or that I am able to push myself to the absolute limit of exhaustion. I'd really love to tell you that I did on both counts, but if I'm absolutely honest with myself I can not. I think the difficulty is that with every WOD there is a goal, whether it be time, rounds or weight. It's so easy to count that last rep even though it was far from perfect. I think what I'm trying to say is that the goal is irrelevant unless you do every rep the way it is supposed to be done. I for one feel that I'm trying so hard to progress that I'm not focusing on the basics and that is doing every rep as prescribed. From now on I'm going to try my hardest to stick to this, and if the time is 45 minutes, 1 round or 40kgs max weight then so be it. I don't remember seeing a video or reading an article on the site which said "do the exercise kind of like this, or sort of like that". In fact the complete opposite is true as there is so much very specific information on how to do the exercises that no one should or could be in any doubt as to how to perform a given exercise. This is not a dig at anyone, just a reminder that we all get fatigued and with fatigue comes bad form. It isn't 10 reps if you only did 5 properly.

Just did FGB. 245 total. Now Im gonna go die.

No rest for this Canuck in Calgary, ran beside the Bow River for about 10-11 km.

STAMPEDERS VS. LIONS TONIGHT, going to cheer on the stamps, go stamps go.

Mike #173: I agree completely. I'm waiting to see a very fast fran by a very big and strong guy. The benchmark girls workouts are not kind of folks who aren't built like rock climbers or gymnasts--big legs are just dead weight for the vast majority of them. That's just the way it is, I suppose. Skinny little guys undoubtedly suffer on CFT days, so I guess it's even.

As for Josh, MAN that guy is a great athlete. I'm sure glad he's on our side. The time's obviously illigit due to lack of ROM on the pullups, though. A lot of them weren't close. Interesting point earlier about the odd numbered ones being excessively over the bar, so it averages out.

Perhaps all metcon WOD scores should just be scored by power output. That'd fix all the questions of big guy, little guy, etc.

Oh yeah, one more thing.

What's up with the whole question with BFK vs kip? Of course the BFK is legitimate! Full ROM with only hands touching the bar == a countable pullup. It's just a smarter and faster way to do it for speed. Besides, it LOOKS way cooler too, LOL.

51 yoa new guy...

took yesterday off...today, a BFL (Body For Life) aerobic day. Find myself in far better running/aerobic/anaerobic shape now that N ever was just doing standard training. Feels great!

By the way....I skimmed through many of the comments today, and cannot velieve the amount of nitpicking and dissection of "chin over or just under bar" crap I see. This young man just earned his Trident, for God's sake, via a regimen most of could not even begin to undertake. Not to mention the real world choices, and potential consequences, he will face for the rest of his career with the Teams.

Shut up and thank God for such young men as these.

I read Duesberg's book that HIV doesn't cause AIDS when I was a teenager and was influenced by his provocative ideas. Now that I am a scientist and know more about virology and medicine, I don't agree with his theory. However, I have great respect for a scientist willing to go against the mainstream, foregoing major funding to study ideas that most ignore.

I think most posts about pull-ups and work/power outputs are making fairly reasonable (and usually correct) statements. It is just that often only one or two aspects are discussed per post and other issues not mentioned.

The total external work done is very similar. In the vertical direction if you go from full extension to chin over the bar you are doing the same external work whether kipping, B-kipping, straight or even jumping. In the horizontal plane more work might be done in kipping but that is not a huge part of the total work so lets ignore that for now. So that is a fact -- vertical potential energy change is the same therefore mechanical work output is the same.

The two big differences between all of these types of pull-ups is which muscles are used and the true metabolic energy costs.

The obvious example of the first point is that in jumping pull-ups you use mostly leg musculature and much less arm musculature. In the kipping forms you definitely use trunk and legs to help aid the upward swing. Just because your feet don’t touch the ground doesn't mean all of the power is coming from the arms. Knees-to-elbow raises you centre of gravity while hanging form a bar and that surely doesn't tax you arms as much as your abdominals. So a bit like a push-press or push-jerk versus a straight press the kip and jump varieties of the pull-up use more muscle mass to achieve the same external work.

In my Aug’07 Crossfit Journal #60 article "The stretch-shortening cycle and plyometric training" I discuss issues related to my second point. The traditional kipping pull elicits a stretch-shortening cycle and quite a bit of the kinetic energy gained from the down-swing (due to gravity not your energy cost) will be stored in the muscle and returned as energy back in the up-phase. So in terms of metabolic energy costs (which is ultimately what you feel) it probably does cost you less to kip then doing a series of dead-hang pull-ups.

I haven't analyzed the b-kip in any detail but there might be some similar benefit of a stretch-shortening cycle. However, the post about maintaining momentum is a valid point. The subsequent post criticizing that post saying work is work and not momentum is also correct. However, there is definitely a large metabolic cost to overcoming inertia versus continuing momentum. I actually discuss this in another article, March’08 #67 " Good hormones, bad hormones". The external work is the same remember but to do that work faster (i.e. do more pull-ups in the same amount of time) via a traditional kip means you have to accelerate quicker on the up-swing, and then after the down-swing you have to stop and accelerate back up. Although as stated, you get some returned energy in the traditional kip, the faster times the b-kip appears to be capable of suggests to me that not having to stop and turn around is a huge benefit. Keep in mind you can have some muscles undergoing a stretch-shortening cycle even if you are swinging through the bottom of the b-kip movement pattern.

Again admitting I am talking without having looked at the b-kip as much as I have the traditional kip, it appears to me that the benefit of the b-kip is likely to be the added benefit of the continuation of momentum. An example of this is the POSE running method. We have known "forever" that sprinters shouldn't over-stride and cause a deceleration by having the foot-strike out in front of the body's centre of gravity. It is just inefficient to slow your forward momentum if you don’t’ have to. (Off topic – but it seems strange this concept hasn’t been applied to distance running until recently). Despite the fact that when looking at only the vertical component of all pull-ups there is a stop and go aspect, with the b-kip you definitely have a more continuous movement cycle. To me, this has to be main reason for the quicker times and I suspect it is because you can get fast times without upping the metabolic costs….this would explain the comments where people get more pull-ups quickly once thye master the technique even if muscle power/strength hasn’t changed

So I think the conversation has been interesting and pretty much accurate. To me it is an issue of what muscles are brought into play and whether you are talking about external work outputs or the true metabolic energy cost to the musculature.

Either way, the rules for Fran have been stated above and a 2:02 time is just amazing. If Josh adds some neck muscle work to crane his chin over the bar?.....well the rules do not state all pull-up power must come from the arms because as stated above, if they did, all kipping would be outlawed!

29/f/115

did an oldie but goodie

3 rounds for time of:

65# ohs, 15 reps
15 L-pull-ups
65# split jerk, 15 reps
15 knees to elbows
65# hang squat clean, 15 reps
15 back extension, w/25# plate to chest

27:20

pre: wux2
post: 5 rounds for time of:

55# db swing, 15 reps
20 push-ups
25 gdh sit-ups

17:17

yesterday did FGB, 297 can't seem to break 300, last time was 299. transitions killed me. my weakness were highlighted in this WOD. gotta work on those wall balls, box jumps and sdhp's.

resting tomorrow.

wow 2:02 fran, amazing.

Please observe OPSEC guidelines when posting videos.

Josh, awesome job on Fran and well done on the Trident. Muchos respect.

There is a total inability of many on here to recognise that momentum does play a part in making any exericse "easier".

Whenever we use momentum, we can do more of the given exercise. Imagine lifting a rock v swinging it when it is tied to a rope. The latter is akin to kipping. Brad #125 is correct. I have not seen anyone successfully refute his argument.

This is not to denegrate kipping of butterfly kipping. They're tough exercises. But they do utilise kinetic energy.

I love CF but I do believe that some of its reported success comes from new devotees learning new skill sets - often effectively harnessing kinetic energy - and imagining fitness gains which are correspondingly exaggerated. Someone who can't do one pull-up can, within a few short months, learn to crack out 15+ kips. Wow - how fit are they.... Well, fitter, no doubt. But is that the whole story?. I realise CF sees skill and co-ordination etc. as legit. goals. But that's not the point I'm making. Some of you might say you run a mile faster than ever - that is cool and stands up.

The AIDs thing is just another example of a contrarian view taken in the face of what many experts would say is well-accepted science. Many in CF see the low-carb diet as evidence that all science is open to critique by lay-people and "usually wrong". This is a potentially arrogant and dangerous mistake. But it makes people feel smart. I'm all with Ken # 228 on that. Many people posting here are "barrack-room lawyers" or "wash-room scientists". Hacks. Non-experts posting links and theories they don't understand or which they are taking as gospel because it suits them to be in the challenging "free-thinking" minority. Personally, I'd like to see a rest day post in favour of the Guantanamo ruling by the Supreme Court, an article criticising the right to bear arms given the number of kids shot with their parents' legally held guns in the US, an article asking why no elected representative can openly criticise Israeli foreign policy without serious repercussions, one asking why 1% of the US population controls 90% of US wealth or one asking why before the Iraq "war" 69% of Americans believed that Sadam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11. Somehow, I don't see that happening any time soon. Surprise me.

Still love CF and genuinely admire the fact that Coach and the others on here seem to be tolerant enough to accept the odd contrary view.

Peace.

Ron F. #240
I'm with you on that bro. What a load of BS.

Barry--

I usually appreciate your posts on controversial topics such as this (AIDS), but I have to say that despite your logical deconstruction of Duessburg's work, your conclusions (and his) are flat wrong.

As a medical doctor who has taken care of numerous patients with HIV/AIDS, this article seemed almost ridiculous on first glance. However, after reading about Duessburg's work, I do sympathize with his plight as a "contrarian" researcher. His cancer hypothesis is certainly intriguing and much more reserarch is being done to that end. Likewise, his AIDS hypothesis is intriguing and would even merit additional funding if the etiology of AIDS hadn't been proven nearly 20 years ago with the solidest evidence science can provide.

The only syllogism here is that persons with AIDS universally have HIV positive blood. I know of no case from the literature where a person with proven AIDS does not have HIV. There are certainly individuals out there with HIV positive serum who do not develop AIDS, even after many years without treatment. These individuals have been studied and mutations/alterations in cell signaling pathways have been elucidated in great deal over the years.

Furthermore, Duessburg's flimsy theory implicating the use of nitrites and his obvious racial/homophobic views make his work all the more questionable.

Good point, Hari. I like that example.

Tony Leyland -

I must say your analysis of the kip has easily been one of the most interesting and fascinating posts I have seen in quite a while.

It seems that one of the secrets to success in Crossfit is unlocking the mystery of the kip. Better kips equal a better fran, and doing fran hard and fast equals being fitter.

Is there anyone who is offering a workshop or certification specifically focused on the kip? I think this would be of benefit to all those who Crossfit!

No rest for me.

Nate
2 MUs
4 HSPUs
8 KB Swings (Had to use a 28KG KB, didn't have any bigger)

11 rounds + 1 Muscle up in 20 minutes.

I am rather distressed by the Duesberg article being posted. I understand the attraction toward "maverick" thinking here at Crossfit, but we should be able to make a distinction between legitimate contrarians and conspiracy theorists.

Barry, #202, I stand by my original statement, that this just ain't so:

"HIV is a virus that passes from mother to child, and consequently cannot be intrinsically harmful, or it would perish."

Hepatitis is passed from mother to child (as well as any number of other methods of transmission, just like HIV), is demonstrably intrinsically harmful, and it shows no signs of perishing. Interestingly, Duessburg mentions this virus in his text, but a brief search turned up several references (CDC, for example) that clearly state that a perinatal infection can cause liver disease.

I read the article (about 10 minutes ago, and about 12 years ago), and while he does make some interesting points, there are several problems with his basic logic. Most of them have already been pointed out by the larger medical community and several posters here.

J1 #245 - very well said regarding the rest day posts.

Regarding BFK pullups, they are a different, faster, and therefore better (for maximum power output in a short workout like Fran at least) way to do the same amount of work. All this talk about the BFK not being a valid pullup for Fran is total BS.

Regular kipping pullups use momentum too, but they are flawed in that they require you to come to a complete stop twice in each repetition (at the top and at the end of the swing). It just makes more sense to conserve your momentum and keep moving rather than stop twice per rep if you are going for maximum power output. If you can keep moving without breaking the pre-defined rules, then you have just built a better mousetrap and found a way to increase your power output by learning a new skill rather than increasing your muscle efficiency or contractile power or whatever.

The BFK vs. kipping pullup seems somewhat analogous to the snatch vs. clean and jerk - it is a faster way to do a lot of reps because you don't stop in the middle of the movement but may be more taxing physically at high reps and not as effective at lifting large amounts of weight. But for maximum power generation in a short time frame, it appears to be a superior movement.

Here is another way to look at it: Saying the BFK is invalid is like saying you have to run 400m, stop, turn around, run 400m, and repeat for 5K or your 5k run is not valid.

Conservation of momentum - It's not just easier, its the LAW.

Thursday 06/26/2008

Ran 1.75 miles w/ 15lbs in pack (approx 15 minutes)
Biked 2 miles in approximately 20 minutes
Swam 20 minutes

"Fight Gone Bad!"

Three rounds of:
Wall-ball, 10 pound ball, 10 ft target (25,23,31 reps)
Sumo deadlift high-pull, 75 pounds (13,15,15 reps)
Box Jump, 20" box (30,40,42 reps)
Push-press, 75 pounds (20,20,21 reps)
Row (12,16,15 calories)
In this workout you move from each of five stations after a minute. The clock does not reset or stop between exercises. This is a five-minute round from which a one-minute break is allowed before repeating. On call of "rotate", the athletes must move to next station immediately for best score. One point is given for each rep, except on the rower where each calorie is one point.

Ran 1.75 miles with 15lbs in pack (approximately 20 minutes)

Amazing Video!

For thrusters, which is more important:
1)You break parallel
2)Your butt touches a ball

Seems like the shorter you are the less work you are doing. What is the diameter of MB anyway?

I admire the efferts of anyone who can display such incredable power outputs. I am not worried about the legitamicy involved I am worried about getting my time down by a significant amount next time I do fran.

That said. I do notice at times that others will sacrifice ROM (weather legitimat as a rep or not I don't know) for speed. I have found that while form can begin to fail with fatigue ROM dosenot have the same degradation. For myself completeing the rep with the largest ROM I possibly can improves my fitness much faster than getting a few seconds of my time. Don't get me wrong I do the BF kip on fran and I want to shave time of my Fran but not at the cost of my athletic potential. I sometimes want to mimic a fellow crossfitters ROM in order to "level the playing feild and beat him at his own game. Hpwever that is vain and self deffeating it also does not make me feel any better. I beleive everyone is doing the best they can. If someone "cheats" thats probably all they know and are incapable of being anymore honest, but who am I to judge there intent in the first place.
So his chin didn't go over the bar a couple of times so his arms didn't always lock out so his equiptment allows an advantage. Lets enjoy some friendly competition assume that every ones intent is not to "cheat". Hey he beat me fair and square but just watch out Im commin after you all.

Bingo, we appreciate your personal anecdotal evidence supporting the HIV-AIDS link, but this is science. You are not conducting organized studies utilizing the scientific method. It's like saying "Well, I see with my own eyes that the sun moves across the sky, which clearly supports the prevailing hypothesis that the sun revolves around the earth, so I am adding to the body of evidence." Here, have a Nobel prize. (sorry, feeling sarcastic. There has been far too much ad hominem on this board today)

The history of science is defined by new thinkers pushing in new directions and ultimately being vindicated when their controversial theories prove to be correct. We seem to assume that persecution for contrary ideas is a thing of the past, but human behavior has not changed. And assuming that modern scientists are dedicated to the noble pursuit of scientific truth is as delusional as assuming politicians are devoted to the public good. Scientific research is funded by money, as are politicians... possibly from the same sources, even.

Football practice

as RX'd:

24:00:00

excellent rest time

Weighing in late on the rest day topic (the HIV/AIDS one, not the BFK one) - is anyone still reading?

I love the parallels between this issue, the fat is bad dogma and the anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming debate.

When a hypothesis, whether tested to the point where belief in it seems justified or not, becomes accepted by the majority of the scientific community or even by a vocal minority, proponents of alternative hypotheses are dubbed deniers and seem to come under media trial before scientific peer review or even significant experimentation.

When so much stock is put in the commonly held belief is anyone even testing alternative hypotheses? Is the answer to that question wrapped up in the issue of research funding?

To extend this even further, from the discussion on 21/6 about misunderstanding the success of the Crossfit business model...

The fitness community as a whole believes in certain training patterns being supremely beneficial for certain occupations. Coach Glassman suggests Crossfit as being superior training for any endeavour and goes on to empirically prove this. Thank goodness Coach devised an alternative and tested it.

The popularity of (and potential profit to be had from) a particular theory shouldn't stifle further research. Forego profit in preference to the search for truth? Am I dreaming?

Also, I would love to hear from physicians posting here regarding Duesberg's statements about "presumptive diagnosis"

I've got a fever, and the only remedy is tomorrows WOD!

m/30/5'7"/162

Missed yesterday's work-out and did a metcon on Tuesday, so I did Tuesday work-out today

Snatch

65-75-85-95-105-110(f)-110

Never really snatched before. It's fun!

Does anyone ever read this far into the comments this late in the day when there should be a new WOD already posted?

Bingo's anectodal evidence is more research than Deusburg. A quick literature review of the last 10 years uncovered no original research by him on the topic of AIDS. Not to say my 5 minute search is exhaustive.

Awesome to see thought provoking articles on CF.

Being fit in the mind is super important!

RE: 2.02 Fran - Outstanding work Josh! Well done!

As a trainer though and ex PTI it don't count if the chest don't touch the deck - you know what I mean :-)

I believe you can make sub 2 min Fran with 'strict form' - thats what we all aspire to.

Good luck and be safe in the sand!

No doubt that was an impressive time. For butterfly kipping critics, it doesn't matter how you get up as long as you get your chin above the bar. The work is the same. However I do have to question several of those pull ups. He was clearly reaching.

For all the SOF and LE Crossfitters I just attended the CF of Tactical shooting. It consisted of functional tactical shooting information and range work. The course was presented by Mike Pannone. What Coach has done for Functional Fitness Mike Pannone has done for Functional shooting.

johnfg #192,

Quackwatch defines AIDS as follows:

>>An HIV-infected person is diagnosed with AIDS when his or her immune system is seriously compromised and manifestations of HIV infection are severe.

It then mentions the 26 opportune diseases, not as necessary to the case definition, but as evidence of “severe immunosuppression”.

This is not the CDC definition. The CDC requires one of the 26 opportune diseases, and it allows for non-HIV cases. See my comment at #154.

Second, as Tyler astutely points out, Quackwatch only says “virtually all” AIDS cases present with HIV active or antibodies. That means some cases do not, and Quackwatch admits as much. HIV is not necessary. And of course, HIV does not cause AIDS because it does not cause the opportune diseases.

Quackwatch says,

>> Individuals … have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995). [¶] In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV-infected.

These are contradictory observations.

Quackwatch poses the following straw man:

>> MYTH: Some people have many symptoms associated with AIDS but do not have HIV infection.

Quackwatch's answer is tantamount to an admission that the myth is true. Included in the response is the following:

“However, immunosuppression has many other potential causes.”

This implies that the criterion for AIDS is not HIV-induced immunosuppression, but just immunosuppression. It is almost Duesberg's contention, and it contradicts Quackwatch's ersatz definition.

Quackwatch cites the Koch's postulates for an “epidemic disease”. Others, including Duesberg I belief, use Koch's postulates to establish that a microbe causes a disease, not an epidemic. Regardless, the third postulate per Quackwatch is,

>> Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host.

This is not an accidental cause and effect, or a statistical relationship. It must produce the disease, at least to some degree, barring immunity. The postulates as stated in Wikipedia are stronger, and number four.

Quackwatch supports the HIV cause by citing a handful of “tragic incidents”. Exceptional cases don't pass muster with the Koch's postulates.

But is there any disease caused by a microorganism which may also occur in the absence of that microorganism? Can a patient present with, say, polio, and not be infected with the polio virus? Is that what the proponents of the proposition that HIV causes AIDS are saying? Wouldn't AIDS be the first such condition?

Quackwatch relies on the sudden appearance of HIV. Duesberg says its been around for hundreds of years. His rational seems to be based on the epidemiology of the virus. It is in steady state in the general population at around 0.4%, and that requires some time to achieve. Apparently it came from African chimpanzees, but why did it bloom in the 20th Century when the animals had been hunted and eaten throughout history? Quackwatch baldly asserts that it suddenly beamed down. The argument doesn't seem to be proved one way or the other, but only Duesberg provides a sound argument.

In the end, we get back to the problem that AIDS is a syndrome, not a specific disease. It is a condition in which one of a set of specific diseases appears in the presence of a severely challenged immune system. HIV might be sufficient to trigger the condition. It might require some help. But it is not unique.

Clinical data can be misleading. If one is practicing medicine in a bath house district or in Tanzania, he is going to see a lot of AIDS, almost always accompanied by HIV. But the correlation might be due to a common cause, and not that one causes the other. We know that promiscuous anal intercourse spreads HIV like wild fire. So the HIV was there. But why did those victims develop AIDS? Why didn't the HIV run its course as it does in the general population? Most straight people develop antibodies, the virus goes dormant, and the HIV disease presented is often undetectable or mistaken for flu.

Isn't there a similar argument for Africa?

Duesberg has a model to answer those questions. And he is excoriated for it. Skepticism is a virtue in science, and ad hominem attacks are anathema. Duesberg wins; his opponents have fouled out.

Meanwhile, where are the competing models? Why isn't the HIV/AIDS model complete? If gay males got AIDS because of HIV, why were they unique?

#270-John,

Never heard of Mr. Pannone. Do you have a link to his business? Are you familiar with Bill Rogers? Does Mike Pannone teach a similar shooting principle? http://www.rogers-shooting-school.com/Home%20page.htm

Bill Rogers shooting school test #4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDv1ETaB1zI

Joe P, a "slightly less than perfect model" to me is sufficient cause to look at alternative hypotheses that might better fit the data. In an environment where politics and science are mixed, it is easy to create consensus simply by funding one side of the argument and not the other. I've heard this scenario play out with the global warming hypothesis, the cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis, the "fat makes you fat" hypothesis, etc. The consensus could be correct in all of these cases, but consensus isn't proof.
I've tried to read both sides of the issue, but my attempts to read critiques of Duesberg have only told me that he's not the nicest guy in the world. Even the articles supporting him seem to confirm that. In the few examples where they try to show proof, their examples might refute one claim, but leave another wide open. I haven't seen any point by point rebuttals that interpret the data he brings up or that show new data to counter his claims.

Did Nicole, 7 rounds 131 pullups

Tyler, Barry and others,

Intimidating intellectual rigor there, this isn't global warming or fat peoples diets.

Why don't we 'black box' it? I'll take the 'life style' drugs, You guys can take the intravenous injection of 'live virus.' Thought not. Any ,more volunteers? Thought not.

If you don't do this stuff for a living, stand back and say 'thank you.'
Yours
Bad Form

Heady Murphy #260:

Calling me out on the validity of anecdotal evidence is appropriate, and I admitted earlier on that I would "punk out" and do this from memory. But to call the evidence for the cause (of HIV) and effect (of Rx of HIV) questionable because of Deusberg's particular objection doesn't fly. Yes, scientific skepticism is vitally important, and we only have to look at the dietary research (and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and...) to know that dogma can and should be challenged. But sometimes, as Ken and J1 point out, the research is substantially right, and you don't see people coming out of the woodwork to challenge the prevailing thought. AGW is actually a good comparison: there is a very active international petition signed by literally thousands of scientists challenging the precept of AGW, and there are legions of peer reviewed articles doing the same http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml.

Try as I might I just don't see that in this case. It might be because a hypothesis was floated (HIV causes AIDS), a prediction was made (reduce HIV infection and AIDS can be treated) which has been tested in an "experiment" (AIDS patients treated with the anti-viral cocktail don't die); a follow-up prediction has been made (treat HIV and AIDS won't occur) which seems to be the case in a follow-up "experiment" where HIV infection is controlled without the incidence of AIDS.

I dunno, Man, sounds like science to me.

Congrats Josh.....and yeah for short dudes!!

Johnny->5'5"/160lbs

As most of you know, I participate quite regularly in these discussions. It's my equivalent of TV watching. It's about the only internet surfing I do. I only go to about four sites.

The responses I am getting today are pretty typical. I have some people appealing to authority, saying that since I (and other people agreeing with--at least tentatively--the article, and thereby in effect playing the Devil's Advocate) am not a properly designated "expert", I don't get to play.

But the precise argument being made is that quite often a scientific "consensus" is in large meeasure generated by shutting out dissenting views either by not funding their research, or not permitting them to be published or allowed to deliver lectures in conferences of their peers.

With respect to the funding of research, was I the only one who noted the implications of what might be termed "Centralized Planning" with respect to the choke points engineered into our system of funding ideas? A small number of people determine who gets the money. Those people are centralized, typically in the Washington area, and so the precise economic value of what Hayek termed "distributed knowledge" cannot be brought to bear to the increase of scientific understandings. We don't appear to tolerate ideological diversity in the top ranks of our scientific community.

There is a very clear correllation, in my view, between the contrarianism of CrossFit with respect to the fitness community, the libertarian bent of Coach's philosophy (he actually introduced me to Hayek's work), and the preoccupation with what we might term "knowledge socialism".

I see, of course, the usual bumbling ad hominem attacks, which try to pair me with ideas which are presumed to place me in a bad light. Plus ca change . . .

Other than Bingo and a few others, though, I don't see a serious intent to engage the material. This is simple laziness. I posted an article that was held up, but it showed up on Comment 212. I excerpted one relevant quote there. Here is another:

"Yellow scientists have fled the risks of science that Albert Einstein described when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Returning to the topic of the day, if we posit that Hiv causes Aids, would it not be logical to suppose the contrary, that Aids cannot exist without Hiv? Is this not reasonable? It would seem to be a clear conclusion, to me. In fact, the existence of Aids without the presence of Hiv would appear to place the hypothesis in jeopardy, if not falsify it outright.

Yet, Duesburg alleges precisely this, and appears to be drawing on clearly documented cases, the existence of which does not appear to be controversial. They were presented at a conference he attended, by other researchers.

The small problem, like Mars retrograde (observed, but not properly explained until Copernicus), or the bending of light around Sun (predicted by Einstein, and later shown experimentally), is what generally provokes paradigm shifts. This is clear from the study of the history of science.

Given the amount of study on this topic, it does not appear to me that the supposition that Hiv is unrelated to Aids can be supported. However, it might be that Hiv plus environmental factors leads to a condition which can be arrived at solely through environmental factors. Maybe Hiv causes the expression of some sort of latent genetic defect, for example, when coupled with malnutrition, or regular use of inhalants. We could accept this, accept a relation between antiviral treatments and control of Aids expression, and still accept his basic idea that environmental factors are primarily responsible for the development of full blown Aids.

His summary of the epidemiology seemed to clearly show patterns in how HIv expressed itself in Aids. Popper users get Sarkozi's lyphoma, or whatever it was called. African Aids patients don't. They don't use poppers.

He makes a clear epidemiological case that HIv is an old virus, and that the only way it could have survived is through transmission from mother to child. And the only way that could have worked was if the likelihood of that child living were not reduced. Obviously, many diseases are transmitted from mother to child, which result in the disability of the child. This, however, would prevent further transmission of the virus, which would result in it dying out quickly. Ebola is highly contagious, and it consumes its host. This is the pattern of most viruses. Either they eat everything they can as fast as they can, then jump to a new host, or they exist undercover, and only come out when the time is right.

In effect, Hiv in his view has existed for some time as a latent genetic defect that has only in modern times "blossomed" (evolutionarily, these are good times for this virus, which after all is just trying to survive) into the wider population.

We can with perfect congruence accept that this disease is spread through "exchange of body fluids", and that it requires in most cases added factors to come into full expression. In Africa today, there is much more movement of people than was previously the case, so the virus has spread more widely, and tapped into preexisting conditions of malnourishment to breed the deadly combination that is killing so many people.

At the same time, if we follow the evidence, which seems to indicate that Hiv--while highly correllated with Aids--is neither necessary (there are Aids patients who are not Hiv-positive), nor sufficient (having Hiv does not mean you will get Aids), then one can deduce, logically, that we are missing something.

Until that lacuna is admitted publicly, and this small gap shown to be potentially paradigm shattering, we will not be able to call the efforts to cure this terrible disease "scientific", in the highest and best use of that word.

Day 18 of my 1000 day diet.
Made up workout... 2 rounds of:
10 pullup
10 dips
50 jump rope
10 95# clean
25 pushup
25 situp
4 trips up and back jumping over 8 steps (18" wide, 5" high", 18" apart)
23:20

Barry #279:

Not bad, Barry, not too bad! AIDS is, as Jeff pointed out, a syndrome and not a disease per se. In a similar way one can have Parkinson's Syndrome without Parkinson's Disease because the manifestation of the symptoms can come from more than one cause. Witness the unfortunate kidney transplant patient who is immunocompromised and has Kaposi's sarcoma or coccidiomycosis or CMV retinitis, and yet is decidedly HIV negative. The existence of patients with AIDS in the absence of HIV does not negate the validity of the HIV-AIDS association in those who do. Hence the more accurate term HIV/AIDS.

FWIW, all viruses do not consume their host. Chicken pox, the mumps, influenza and their brethren do not typically kill their host. For the survival of a virus it need only replicate in time to find another host.

Again, FWIW, HIV may indeed have been an innocuous, quite old virus, perhaps even a cousin of a simian virus that continues to exist. HIV, like many viruses, has demonstrated an uncanny ability to mutate over the time that it has been studied, and a single point mutation in the 70's could be all it took to reach a tipping point.

And lastly, FWIW, I respectfully disagree with "Bad Form" when (s)he says that folks who do not do this for a living have no place in the discussion. At a certain point though reasonable people will accede to the reality on the ground, either the science extant or the exit side of the black box, and accept the prevailing thought. With all due respect I think this contrary position doesn't deserve your support.

D.

#202- "192, 193, 198: I've done the work for you in summarizing Duesburg's arguments. To do that, I had to do some reading, then some thinking. Please step up to the plate and provide something other than the recurring refrain that "top scientists all agree . . ."

I'm not sure what you're talking about- all of the articles linked to in those posts addressed some specific point made by Duesberg, the Quackwatch one being the most comprehensive. I posted mine as a very small example of what many previous posters had asked for (an example of a critic of Duesberg who actually addressed his claims). Anyway, the article is still there, for those who wish to read it.

its too bad crossfit has started censoring the comments for merely different viewpoints from good job buddy. If someone has done something wrong they should know it. Whoever posted the video with Josh's full name did him a great disservice and now he and his family are in jeopardy. Even if in his ignorance he did not see the potential consequences you should have. He is a new guy and should know better. For the record...if you care about our operators, you will in the future never post a full name of a current operator- even if they are stupid enough to post it. Just use your imagination...the bad guys do!

If you have a problem with this post...anyone...send me an email and I can elaborate.

#283: I'm asking you to understand your own position. If all you do is post a link without comment, all you are doing is saying "9 out of 10 experts agree". I don't care what the experts say, since a core belief of mine is that "all men have sinned". We are all fallen, to greater or lesser extents, and so it should come as no surprise to anyone that significant sections of our scientific community should fall victim to varying forms of intellectual corruption.

As a principled agnostic, I don't need to place an undivided and naive faith in systems of thought and practice put into place and run by human beings. There is no difference in principle or practice between "science" and churches in this respect. Both fall prey to hypocrisy, and the violation of their own first principles. This is how it works.

#284: With respect to Josh, surely if we trust him to fight in the shadows on our behalf, we can trust him to be enough of a big boy to make an informed decision with respect to his identity? You are implying he's less than intelligent, and by extension that you understand this issue better than he does. This seems foolish to me, and puts you in a bad light, not him.

What is secret is how and where they are deployed, and what they are doing. Keep in mind that a successfully kept secret is unsuspected by anyone.

"As a principled agnostic, I don't need to place an undivided and naive faith in systems of thought and practice put into place and run by human beings."

You seem to place undivided and naive faith in YOUR system...namely that you don't need to place undivided and naive faith into a system.

Accepting things at face-value (at times) is not naive, it is absolutely essential to living. It's impossible to not take at least some rather important belief/system of beliefs at face-value. Claiming that we cannot do this, basically, sinks the whole ship know as "discourse." It leads to global skepticism, in other words.

Groups of experts, over time, reach reasonable conclusions. This is the belief that allows me to drive cars built by other people, ride in planes maintained by other people, and give guns to certain citizens and allow them to shoot other people the state has designated as harmful.

Naturally, you can't give experts free-reign. However, it's totally bat-shit loco to say we "don't need to place an undivided and naive faith in systems of thought and practice." Yes you do. In fact, you do it all the time.

Although, I agree with you it's not always a good idea. Nonetheless, we do it quite often. What were left with is a need to gamble from time to time. And, referring to the track record for treating HIV/AIDS patients, it seems our bets have been reasonably successful.

I went to boot camp with Bridges then to San Diego afterwords. It is no surprise to see him do the workouts with such ease. Butterfly pullups or not he is a beast. I've seen him do 25 perfect pullups after a 500m swim in 7 min. and and pounding out 125 pushups in two minutes. He kicked everyone's ass in every type of exercise. The guy doesn't get tired, it just doesn't happen. I have never seen anyone that can put out like Josh. Congrats to Bridges and Reilly, was to represent 924!

#286: you will note that that comment was bookended with a topical discussion of specific aspects of this issue that appear to be getting short shrift. I'm not just making decontextualized pronouncements. I am making specific comments, then generalizing from there. You, on the other hand, are ONLY making generalized statements.

We see this here a lot. I see dozens of comments every day that something along the lines of "obviously there are many opinions, so why are you so sure you are right?". My response, and those of others trying with me to work through whatever the topic is, is to state with as much clarity and concision as a I can my specific reasons for believing what I do.

Since very few people want to actually work on a detail level, I will normally go into a more philosophical mode, since that entertains me, and usually leads to new ideas to incorporate into my own body of thought.

I got interrupted, but would like to add another thought. For many dogmatic atheists, evidence of incongruencies and hypocrisies on the part of religious people is sufficient to condemn the entire enterprise. Yet, in my own experience--which is supported well by demographic data--most religious people take their faith more or less seriously, and genuinely work to incorporate the ideals of their teaching into their lives, which is of great advantage to all of us in living in peace with one another. The scoundrels are the exception, not the rule.

Likewise with science. I am not implying that most scientists are dishonest, or that the scientific method, in its pure form, is somehow less effective in discovering facts about the physical world than religion is in cultivating peace of mind.

What I am saying is that a healthy skepticism is always in order, and it is not only acceptable but necessary for the public as a whole to be alert to potential frauds, conflicts of interest, sloppy work, and groupthink.

I drive a car. I use a computer. I go to the doctor (rarely). This is not a dogmatic, but a practical objection. Practically, people lie. Practically, we as Americans and other citizens of free nations need to use our freedom of speech to participate in discussions which affect us. My money is being used to fund Aids research. If potentially productive research isn't being funded for political and not scientific reasons, I am fully entitled to be angered by that. It's not how it's supposed to work.

#285 Barry if I implied it I apologize. I meant to say it is very stupid to post your full name on here for opsec reasons. You are clearly not in the community we are. Young individuals who make it through training are tough, however not so well versed in how to deal with security. Believe me, I know what is secret about the profession and it makes me cringe when I see a new guy make a mistake like this. I just hope to prevent it in the future, that and we should be quiet professionals anyways.
And for those of you not up to speed on your french this is not my real name.

Brendan P #250

You say, “persons with AIDS universally have HIV positive blood.” Somewhere among these Duesberg articles is the statistic that over 4,000 cases are known to have presented with AIDS while HIV negative. If you are correct in your apparent denial, then Duesberg is severely challenged.

On the other hand, the incidence of HIV negative AIDS is supported by the CDC in its discussion of its case definition of AIDS. Even the servile Quackwatch admits, contrary to its own straw man myth, that AIDS can appear with immunosuppression from causes other than HIV. It would seem that Duesberg prevails on this point.

What is optimum in a clinical setting is not necessarily suitable in research. We have developed an effective treatment for AIDS, and if a positive HIV test helps confirm the diagnosis, apply the treatment. Think horses, not zebras. Correlation can be good enough, even if the cause and effect is bungled. Put the guy on his drugs, and bring in the next patient. Time’s a wasting. Not so in research. The effective treatment is more a matter of clinical trial and error than an outcome from HIV research. Duesberg claims that HIV research has proved to be a blind alley, and he may well be correct.

Further, you say, “his obvious racial/homophobic views make his work all the more questionable.” This smacks of an unbecoming ad hominem. Worse, and what IS obvious, is that your characterization is at its core an application of political correctness. PC is by its very definition incorrect, especially applied to facts. That blacks score one standard deviation below whites in IQ tests is a politically incorrect fact. This kind of thinking leads to counterproductive acts by police, teachers, city planners, airport security, psychologists, and now maybe MDs, all for the imaginary sake of feelings, populism, and suppressing scientific skepticism.

#290: fair enough. I am not in the community. Without elaborating, though, I will say I have seen a variety of approaches to this issue, and if there isn't a standard approach and defined code, there ought to be.

I gotta admit. I am really glad I don't know jack crap about this topic. As far as I know, I do not and have not known anyone with AIDS or HIV personally.

I had crabs once, but I SWEAR I GOT THEM FROM A TOILET SEAT!

Barry, Bingo, Jeff, a few others, fascination discussions which helped deepen my understanding of the issue, I'm grateful.

Fascinating how some folks tolerate uncertainly so little they get angry at folks who are willing to suffer it. It always comes up. "Just shut up all you amateurs so I can have my authoritative source tell me how I think."

Paul

If you study the history of ideas, Thomas Aquinas used the work of Aristotle to destroy the ideas of heretics. In so doing, he developed the use of Reason to a very high level.

At a certain point, scholars such as Erasmus (I am borrowing from memory from Jacque Barzun's excellenr work "From Dawn to Decadence") realized that you could do everything you needed with Reason alone. You could keep a faith in God, but absent the coercive control of a centralized and frequently plutocratic and autocratic Church.

Reason led to the logical idea of combining observation with prediction. Patterns were presumed to exist in Nature, because they reflected the ordered mind of God. Science, then, was literally a form of communication with the Divine.

Since God did not appear to be measurable, at a certain point, the idea came about that his creation reflected His mind, but that He no longer took an active role.

This then led--particularly after Darwin--to the notion that the universe could be ordered without an Divine Plan, and it became quite common for the scientifically minded to be atheists. In some quarters, such as the pseudo-scienfific edifice of destruction built by the Communists, atheism was required.

What is interesting, though, in observing this, is the frequent retention of anachronistic ideas like "Laws". Laws can only be understood in the context of a Law-Giver. If there is no Law Giver, we do better do speak of as-yet unfalsified theories.

But that doesn't suit the psychological needs of the post-religious. They have rejected God, but they have retained a faith--a naive faith, in many cases--in the fundamental rationality of the universe. The very contingency of the existence they have fashioned for themselves makes ideological agglutination nearly unavoidable.

If you harbor doubts, it does a soul much good to surround oneself with fellow believers. Churches do this, for this reason. Scientists in all too many cases likewise do this, for the same reason.

This leads to the almost farcical procession of conclusion after conclusion, followed fastidiously by the faithful, but which varies constantly. You have to eat no fat. You have to rack up X number of aerobics points weekly. Cholesterol kills you. Soy is s miracle food.

Then the next week, or the next month, the "consensus" changes, and the faithful change with it.

Here is one way of putting it: there is more empirical evidence in favor of mental telepathy than the proposition that aspirin reduces your risk of heart attacks.

People can spin that any way they want, but it's true.

With a bit more thought, it seems to me we could speak of Scientism as a Post-Humanism. During the Enlightenment, the thought of improving the human lot was understandably oriented around political reforms, and the alleviation of material suffering.

In my own view, most suffering in the developed world, now, is emotional. It is social alienation, loneliness, loss of purpose and meaning, and corresponding emotional detachment. Science does not speak to any of these, other than through drugs.

Yet in my own view, it is precisely part of the problem that the solution presented (Xanax, Prozac, or whatever they use now) implies a lack of agency on the part of the sufferer to manage their own condition, and more generally--and importantly, since this is the real crux of the problem--the failure of social systems to support individuals in the ways they did before depression and "ADD" were such major problems.

Science doesn't speak to meaning. Meaning is "metaphysical", and thus beyond the domain of an at least theoretically empirical discipline.

What is funny, though, for those able to combine the tragic with the comedic, is that they have lost most of the universe. We used to know where it was, and you give them the car keys once, and look what happens.

One last thing, then I'm out unless somebody is up for some more sparring.

Logically, if paradigm shifts come about from the margins--as what we might term intellectual flanking maneuvers--then why not dedicate time and money as a matter of policy to the small glitches that don't fit in anywhere?

With respect to this issue, my sense is that the 4,000 (or whatever the number is) Aids patients have been largely ignored. Yet this is precisely where, it would seem to me, progress is most likely. What connects their Aids with that correllated with Hiv? What is the overlap?

The problem, now, is similar to the problem with the radios in "A Bridge Too Far", which I watching for the umpteenth time last night. Two very junior technical guys notice that the radios planned for the British First Airborne likely won't reach the 8 miles to the forward parts of their force. This gap is not noticed higher up because the radios worked in the desert, but they are not planning on fighting in the desert.

Discussing it, the more senior of the two in essence decides he isn't going to be the one to stick his neck out and be the guy who stopped a 1,000 airplanes and wrecked months of planning, and 100,000 hours of work.

When this does in fact become a problem in the field, no one is ever going to know to pin it to him. He can always plead ignorance.

Likewise with many topics which have been "decided" at top. There is much risk in sticking your neck out, and very little to be gained unless immediate progress in another direction can be made. You lose credibility, likely your job, and whatever your idea was, you can't get it funded. Professionally, unless you can show instant results somewhere else, you are done. You will have to go back to school and do something else.

Duesburg offered specific studies which in his professional experience--he is and remains to my knowledge a tenure professor at one of the best universities in the world--can be done, and should be done. Until those studies are done, who can take his detractors seriously? None of them seem to have engaged with him substantively, and none of them seem to have come up with a better means of explaining the apparent demographic connections between the group the Hiv positive person belongs to, and the eventual expression of Aids in that person.

One sees often uncomfortable evidence being swept under the rug. That was clearly done with respect to the fat issue, as Taubes shows. In my view, that same thing is being done with the non-Hiv positive Aid's patients. All they have done is give the syndrome a name. I could have done that--Bob or Henry would have been shorter, and nearly equal in descriptive value.

Duesburgs ideas are interesting- but It's ironic that the one place on earth where his premise has actually served as a foundation to public health policy (Mbeki's South Africa) is also the place with the fastest growth of AIDs- not saying it's conclusive- but something to consider.

Barry #296 et seq.,

Those 4000 patients with HIV negative AIDS weren't abused or even inconvenienced. They probably got decent care - hopefully not AZT. They just got their disease reclassified as “idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia”. Those with Altzheimer's were probably lymphomaniacs. I thought I might name my next cat Lymphocytopenia.

Idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia was an unnecessary invention, a ruse even, to defend the rice bowls of HIV researchers.

High school graduates should have been exposed to a smattering of epistemology (without using the name, of course), acquired some understanding of the distinction between objective and subjective knowledge, and gained an appreciation for the difference between secular and atheistic.

Science and our federal government are secular, not atheistic. If you like, science is about discovering how God might have organized the real world and how He made it evident to us. God cannot be made objective, to be measured and predicted.

Our government is explicitly secular to maximize our freedom of, and even from, should you choose, religion.

A friend sent this to me today. It's a real good exercise for your brain.
http://revver.com/video/99898/imagining-the-tenth-dimension/

Enjoy!

Jeff,

I think we're basically in agreement there. It is an interesting question, though, whether or not--as an example--demanding that the Ten Commandments be taken down is a protection of the freedom of religion, or a restriction. Erecting a monument which embodies the beliefs of most, but not all, members of a community would seem not to present a restricion of anyone's right to worship as they please, or not, to their taste.

On the flip side, demanding that a community remove such a monument does seem to constitute such a restriction. They are trying to practice religion, and they are being prevented from so doing. The concept of rights was instituted to protect minority opinions, but not to judicially coerce the majority into compliance with them.

Our new President will be sworn in on a Bible. If I ever have to testify in court, I will take an oath on a Bible. Our dollar bills have explicit Masonic imagery, and many of our Capital buildings were built with Masonic and Christian symbolism.

My reading of secular with respect to the government is they neither force you into believing or worshipping in a certain way, nor do they prevent you. I've always felt the First Amendment was pretty clear, and it seems to me the apple cart got upset not by secularists--which we might term political agnostics--per se, but by principled and judicially active atheistic missionaries.

Their child, of course, is the Religious Right. Madeleine O'Hare may well have gotten George Bush elected twice. That argument would not be hard to make, given the demographics of the last two elections.

Barry,

The line drawn between church and state is rather erratic. No one yet objects to Christmas being a legal holiday, to the government encouraging Thanksgiving, to invocations, to church tax exemptions, or to chaplains in the military, prisons, or hospitals. But give the “atheistic missionaries” time.

Secular in government I submit means not just honoring freedom of religion, but expressing no opinion on matters of faith and mystery. It expresses nothing on the philosophical questions of the existence of God, whether prayers are answered, of intelligent design, or the origin of morality, for example. But the meaning of secularism in itself is another example of philosophical gum chewing. It will generate more opinions than participants.

My definition would not bar teaching comparative religions, or evolution vs. intelligent design in a state school, and under the appropriate program. My objection comes from another place: the state should work its way out of the education business.

What counts is the Constitution, which limits the domain of the Federal government, and which Supreme Court has extended somewhat to the States. Two provisions bar government action: the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment and the “No religious test clause” of Article VI. These are enough to let the line in the sand blow one way or the other forever. A position taken as an individualist and strict constructionist should harm no one and avoid any infringement of rights.

Often the ACLU is just silly. More often than not, the best response to them would be to “get over it”. Example: objecting to the cross on the Los Angeles County seal. And speaking of the Ten Commandments, at times the so-called religious right goes too far, as in the practices of former Judge Roy Moore. When the two clash, the line can be clarified.

Angry Drew,

Can you square your position with SEAL/S, especially O's, clamoring like schoolgirls to be named and featured on TV, in magazines, or movies? NSW director of recruiting just recently appeared in high res photos with name and rank in Outside magazine along with two other Team guys.

If Al Qaeda wanted to bag SEAL/s there'd be no better bait than a movie shoot. The BUD/S CO recently stood outside NSW gates giving an interview for a commercial venture where his name, rank, and command are all clearly given.

I call "BS opsec concerns". By the way, wanna' be in "Lone Survivor"? I could possibly arrange it. How many Team guys have SAG cards - I know of at least a dozen.

Ridiculous.

Jeff #303

Great post, I had a comment at the end of it though. I agree that a lot of times the ACLU comes up with ludicrous arguments and millions of taxpayer dollars are spent in defense over a stupid concept or item. The religious right does the same, and there is a constant battle between the two trying to get their respective points across. But I see a danger when society stands back and lets the extreme left and right speak for them. Even slight changes among the moderates can inadvertently provide enough sway in which extreme measures or policies arise. When people disengage from discussion and allow the extremes on either side to speak for them, the "line" becomes much more jagged and prone to dangerous and divisive policies. So while I agree with you for the most part, I dont think the "line" should be clarified by the two extremes, but rather by a energized group of people willing to entertain new ideas and actually work toegether for a solution.

Jeff- the idea that the govt should work it's way out of education always seemed impractical to me- where do you (and by extension Libertarians) get that notion?Im guessing it's because of the problems besetting many public schools)
And what are the alternatives typically offered by folks who have this view?
I think the primary problems with education are an over reliance on standardized tests and, paradoxically, the gross grade inflation
( Havard being the worst supposedly good school) that causes them to be effective in the first place.

Barry- I dont think the religious right came about because of missionizing atheists - I think if anything it was the other way around- The religious right came about because of the civil rights act, Roe v Wade and the rise (?) of secular humanism- their big bugaboo.
If anything, those atheists were fighting a presumption of religioun in the schools and public buildings.
Getting over a Cross on a public seal is one thing- or in God we Trust on coins- but telling a school not to pressure your kid to go to federally funded bible class is a fight worth fighting.

James #306

Easy to nationalize, hard to privatize, eh?

I get my notion not from "problems besetting many public schools", but from the failure of the public school system in general to train and to educate. I believe the curriculum needs toughening, the teachers need to be better educated, and the school environment needs to be made conducive to learning. Too many high school graduates cannot read or cipher. The average high school graduate is not functionally literate in one category or more of language, humanities, history, mathematics and science.

I get my notion from participating from 1982 to the mid 90s on a UCI program to train grade school teachers toward remedying the lack of academic preparedness among US high school graduates about to enter a university.

I get my notion from the fact that a federal system almost always works better than a central system, and the fact that a private system almost always works better than a government system.

I get my notion from Tenth Amendment and the absence of Constitutional authority for the federal government to educate children.

Well at least we are in agreement that these are notions as opposed to full blown ideas. What exactly is meant by
" toughening" I hear this term bandied alot- but never accompanied by anything more than some sort of notion - ooops that word again- but it gets vague after that. Tough meaning testing? Tough meaning rigorous attention to qualitative understanding? Tough meaning more arts education,more sports. Tough what?

I dont understand the difference between "federal" and "central"

I have been to private and public, secular and religious, ghetto and uptown schools and have seen many disparities - by far my best experiences were at private schools- I performed better- but public schools had more to offer in terms of sports/extra curricular and facilities.

I dont see a problem with several robust systems a public and private?

I disagree with your assertion that private systems always work better- by what measure? In public school one rarely has to worry about the influence of money supplanting fairness.

I will have to reaquaint myself with the 10th amendment.
Thanks

Just read the Duesberg interview, and a bit more that I found on the internet. Duesberg's views may carry some weight in the developed world, but in Africa - where the disease is most prevalent - they are damaging and irresponsible in the extreme. HIV/AIDS has kileld millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa alone, and continues to do so. These people are not intravenous drug users or homosexuals by and large. Duesberg's views seem to promulgate conservative religious views cloaked as science. Realism in law describes a view which holds that judges make decisions based on, for instance, personal feelings and then search for the relevant law to justify that decsion. So with Duesberg. The science around HIV/AIDS is new and not decided. This makes it easy to find problems with it. As is often the case with those who seek to attack a mainstream view, his evidence in support of his AIDS/lifestyle argument is largely anectodal and cicumstantial. He provides no strong counter argument, other than perhaps, that AIDS in africa is a different disease to that in Europe and North America despite the similarities in symptons.

What is perhaps a largely academic debate to many his sphere is all to real to many dying of the disease in countries such as South Africa, where government support for dissident views long delayed access to AZT for the poor. This is not academic. These are peoples lives.

I have read this whole thread and not once has anybody shown what Duesberg has "ignored" or demonstrated flaws in his model. And he's not the only one with qualifications to have this model:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/not/index.htm

One quick look through this guys papers will show that he has done a LOT of research and has documented his claims in a very detailed manner and has been published many times over in peer-reviewed journals.

A long list of scientists and doctors who agree with Duesberg's hypothesis:

http://www.sparks-of-light.org/listscientists.htm

Good links- I dont neccesarily agree with everything on our civiliztion- but thanks for including them.