WOD: 6 hours of playoff football.

3, 2, 1, go!

This article raises an interesting point but, it doesn't change my stance. If it's a controlled dangerous substance or a drug that isn't prescribed to you, it's illegal and immoral.

Otherwise you would be opening the door for so many other things. Taking Ritalin to pass a test? how is that any different than injecting performance enhancing drugs to gain an advantage on the field? where does it stop?

Everyone has to figure out what's right for them, for me it's a cup of coffee when I'm working midnights and a glass of my home made wine on occassion. Life is good, God Bless!

No rest, speed bag & heavy bag

nonsense, The only cognitive enhancement necessary is high quality education and skill development from an early age. The ability to concentrate is a skill that needs to be learnt and practiced just like a Snatch.

#6

Good point, concentration is key.

GO GIANTS!

I startedto read the article but lost my my concentration. HAHA! AN illegal drug is an illegal drug.

I disagree. I read an article a while ago that stated that about 50 per cent of high-intelligence researchers (the smartest people on the planet) used these drugs frequently. Many are under the belief that widespread use of these drugs for cognitive enhancement will enable the pharmaceutical companies into researching drugs that are specifically designed to benefit a person's cognition. And if widespread use of these drugs occured, then it would only mean that humans would be smarter as a whole and be better equipped to face challenges such as global warming, cancer, and numerous psychotic disorders.

study and coffee was what got me my degree. no enhancement necessary.

great interview. think Caity will be a force to be reckoned with again. its interesting to see that someone can perform amazingly well without going on a strict Zone diet. lesson learned - listen to your body and go with what works!

I currently attend the University of Colorado at Boulder.

I can't speak for all institutions for higher learning, but the reason people use Adderall here is because studying cuts into snowboarding time.

Maybe I'm exaggerating, yet it's undeniable that many students here wait until the last minute to take care of business, therefore needing enhancements to get them through.

However, if I had gone to college immediately after high (secondary) school (I'm a 26 year old freshman), I would have failed miserably.

America relies on the educated middle- and upper-classes to help keep the economy sound, and with that many people (young adults and old adults alike) feel that college is the only reasonable path to take toward a good future.

Somehow we expect someone fresh out of high school to know what they want, and subsequently give them the freedom to get what they think they want. In my personal experience, there are a lot of students running around who are expected to achieve, but at the same time just want to live life. Is the system broken? I don't know. That would require some research on my part. I certainly think that a lot of students aren't ready for the college experience, whether academic or personal, and this causes a panicked fight for their future. Panic leads to desperate measures which include supplements like Ritalin and Adderall.

Just one side note: I love CU.

Interesting article. Valid points made. These drugs have not been studied in the long term, especially in healthy people. You're taking your life into your hands taking them (taking them over the long term). So you're marginally more productive for a few decades, and you spend the rest of your life (as an older adult) with dementia or Alzheimer's (or worse). You're messing with the brain...with things like cocaine you stop producing your own dopamine, with HGH supplementation (and testosterone) you stop producing your own... hell, with anti-depression drugs, one of side effects can be suicidal thoughts. Stimulate something and your body adapts. You wouldn't see these long term effects with short-term (one time) use, but do you want an MD who passed his tests because he was on drugs? They're already seeing that with cramming and Mountain Dew (with respect to MDs losing that knowledge over a short amount of time due to cramming).
I'm with John, I'll grab a cuppa joe, Yerba Mate or some tea for a pick me up. I work straight 12hr nights and have never needed something more. Top it off, no (or little) sleeping issues. I'm lucky I guess.
I'd say give it a decade or two before getting all juiced up on meds just to learn something when you're just fine. Could save your life, or future quality thereof.

Anybody notice the girl in the background of the vid doing the 5 lbs lat raises? I thought you were supposed to do those on a big purple ball. Too funny. Can we please have someone in the background of Josh Everett's next interview doing pilates? There really should be more ridiculous to balance out all that legit.

You guys shouldn't be drinking coffee if you are on the zone! lol

And for heavy coffee users I'll refer you to:

http://www.acnp.org/G4/GN401000165/CH161.html

We are a country that loves drugs; both legal and illegal. Television and magazines are filled with advertisements for numerous new pharmaceuticals. The government and the FDA determine what is legal or illegal. If you are in a competition, then a drug is cheating if stated by the rules. To be pendantic, if it is not in the rules, it is not cheating. Life doesn't have rules, it has laws. Wonderfully arbitrary laws many times. I believe in personal responsibility. If you want to take cocaine, great. If you want to smoke pot, go ahead. If you want to injest Ritalin, that's you're call. People should be the ultimate arbiters what goes into their own bodies. The only thing the government should do is stop you from depriving me of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. If you do drugs, but don't murder, steal, etc., then the government should honestly let you be. I do like that the government does studies because let's be honest, it's nice to know if a prescription drug or supplement does what it promises instead of perhaps destroying my kidneys. They are providing a 'public good' when doing this. But, they should not be able to make a law forbidding me from injesting whatever the heck I please. Will all the above being said these cognitive enhancing drugs are just another option for people who are not happy with themselves as they currently are. The desire to be smarter is no different from the desire to use steroids to be stronger, or the desire to smoke pot to feel better. In the interest of full disclosure, I don't do drugs, but as I said, if you don't bother me, then do what you please. You may feel differently, thus the joy of living in a constitutional democracy. Unfortunately when voters of a state decide to legalize pot for example and the federal government steps in a says heck no, the federal has overstepped their constitutional authority to dictate what the state can do. I'd like to think someday the war on drugs will be reminisced about like the days of prohibition and we can all get on with our lives. While the article discussed cognitive enhancing drugs I don't feel like they should be considered any differently from any other substance out there. Thus concludes my rambling and in the interest of open and honest conversation, I'd love to hear someone tear my argument apart.

Shouldn't you make your own decisions on whether or not a drug (or anything else for that matter) is good/bad, moral/immoral?

Several people posted that they disagree simply because it is "illegal." But what if those making the decisions of legality have poor morals or decision making abilities.

Regardless of whether you agree with article, make that decision an informed, educated one instead of relying on others to make it for you.

The problem with several of the comments is that people completely disregard the fact that caffeine is a "drug" in the same sense that adderall is. Olympic athletes are tested for caffeine "juicing" b/c at high doses has been proven to give athletes an edge.

Energy drinks, Starbucks coffee, etc. has TONS of caffeine, and an often ignored fact, caffeine can be toxic at high levels. Even at "regular" levels, caffeine speeds up your heart, along with everything else in your body. That is not healthy to do often.

The key to using any of these drugs is moderation. Using adderall after being prescribed by a doctor, is one thing. Crushing up the pills and snorting them (in order to get a cocaine-like effect) is quite another thing.

Having a cup o' joe to get your juices flowing in the morning is much less detrimental than going through a bottle of energy pills a day, and supplementing that with Redbull. That is no exaggeration, people do exactly that.

Dropping these pills during finals week will not kill you anymore than you're Venti Starbucks 7 days a week.

Moderation is the key to these substances.

REST DAY! Thanks goodness.

My tank is empty and my body is tired. Time to recover and get ready for Monday! I wish I could fast forward through the rest day. I'm all excited about getting fit!

what is this zone diet?

I'm not sure what's with all the whinging about "fairness."

Life isn't fair.

I have a love/hate relationship with rest days. I'm glad for the down time to repair myself, but at the same time I'd much rather be doing another WOD... its a vicious cycle.

bingo's bon mots, Rest Day version...

Welcome young Crosshopper to your first real Rest Day. This one should be fun. It's got lots of typical Rest Day stuff--controversial topic, legal issues, morality issues (both real and manufactured), hot button currency, some left vs. right stuff--got the whole package. Expect this one to bring out the usual adversaries and personalities, as well as the trolls and single issue evangelists.

Now, remember the rules. Discuss the topic at hand. Refute the IDEAS of other posters. Trash their ideas, citations, notes, and claims of expert status, but not the poster. Ad hominem is weak sauce...don't pour that sh!t here at Crossfit.

Don't like the concept of Rest Day? The topic? General trend of the topics? How the discussion progresses? Easy. It happens every 4th day and will continue to happen every 4th day until our gracious hosts Coach and Lauren change their mind. Spare long-time posters and community members your complaints about the above; they are wasted electrons and no one cares. Take every 4th day off.

Want a fitness project for Rest Day. Cool. Subscribe to the CF Journal and start reading. And go look at the FAQ and Exercise demo of the CF Warm-up, Burgener W/U, and Greg Amundsen W/U.

Rest up Buttercups, 'cause Coach will know if you don't, and whatever you do today will be the centerpiece of tomorrow's WOD...

Oh yeah, no "musings" on a Sunday Rest Day. Coach and Lauren pick the topic. It's impolite to change it or talk over it.

I'll see you next week...

This 48 yr old man needs his rest days.

I agree w/ BioMajor in that moderation is one of the keys to taking such "cognitive enhancing substances." But, I do believe that caffeine is less harmful at "normal doses" (one or two cups of regular coffee imo) than the substances the article is suggesting...someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Nevertheless I wouldn't put this garbage in my body. While the article seemed to mock the notion of any attempting to live "naturally," I try to limit my daily poison intake.

In general I have a problem with the idea of accepting these "boosters" as common place.

The conclusion said we should welcome these drugs that will improve our brain function. However, I view these drugs as temporary crutches, not real improvements. It does not seem they will fix anything, but are quite temporary.

Comparing these substances to cosmetic surgery (obviously I'm not referring to birth defects, etc.) and dermatology, fertility procedures, etc. is another reason why I do not accept such things as necessary or even valid. I find all of the above to be frivolous and/or immoral already.

While our workspans and lifespans increase I believe that our QUALITY of life, in first world nations at least, is decreasing. By quality I mean our own level of happiness, the degree of closeness in our communities, the love and tradition amongst our families, on and on. All of these things seem to have decreased here in the U.S., at least since after WWII. So, I reject the notion that on the whole our quality of life will increase. Every new technology sold to this market of consumers claims to do just that, but instead makes many of our lives more cluttered, timeconsuming, and hectic.

It also seems the article only is concerned about us humans "work productivity." I am not the sum of my work productivity, and to suggest it is quite insulting.

These enhancers may benefit society, but it seems to me, on first glance, that the risks outweigh any benefits.

what will be the long term effect of doing something like this the body and mind are made to work. when will we learn that injesting, sniffing, etc some type of enhancing drug will have its effect. I believe in hard work and this is just some lazy sob trying to get by with less. we were not all made to get a sub 2min fran we were also not all made to be neurosurgeons. we were all delt a hand to play just play yours to the best of your ability

The next step after cognitive-enhancing drugs is sports-enhancing; like steroids and HGH.

Here's a thought.
Most physical trainers at globo-gyms use steroids.
Most of the top crossfitters use to be trainers at globo-gyms.
highly logical conclusion: some top crossfitters use steroids.

rest day...i'll rest very well cause it's my birthday on monday i'll hit "BIONIC"...thank you coach for create crossfit i absolute love it thanks Herm, Jay All crosfitters who post me back i apreciate so much your comments and your patience...3-2-1 thanks

#2: So legality determines morality? If the law on a controlled substance changed tomorrow it is suddenly moral to do it? Come on. Abuse of substances, legal or not, is immoral, take alcohol for example.

One has to be responsible to themselves with all types of substances, alcohol included. Legality is irrelevant.

Just for the record #18 (and others)... technically... drinking coffee constitutes cognitive enhancement.

With respect to harder core enhancement... The moral/its illegal argument against any issue is feels compelling for many but such arguments... to have true merit... require support... i.e. why is something illegal... why is something immoral... It must actually be bad for some reason other than being priviledged with a label -- if not it should not be "bad" or "illegal."

Think about it we were born into a society that had labelled congnitive enhancement drugs as beneficial, and mandated their use, we could just as easily argue that not using them was immoral/illegal... think about it.

I agree with the researchers... an evidence based approach that weighs the pros and cons, to society and the individual, of cognitive enhancements... on a case by case basis... is the only way to go.

Long live methylphenidate...

And the Snatch...

Not neccesarily in that order...

Couple random comments

Rest days - if you don't need them you are either a robot or not training hard enough on the "on" days. Recovery is very important in training, if you never rest your performance will just deteriorate over time.

Video - it was strange she was talking about them drilling good technique, then you see that girl trying to snatch in the background with really weak technique? Where's the coach. Not a dig on Caity at all, just found it amusing.

Chris #12

as Jimi Letchford said at the Level 1 Cert in Sydney last year - If you take my coffee away, we fight!!!

Everything has its price. You get high, you come down. Sugar rush, sugar crash, caffeine buzz, caffeine headache, drunken euphoria, hangover etc etc...
These drugs are no different. But that said, people should be able to take them if they are informed of the risks. That is the great thing about freedom, you can be as stupid or as smart as you like.
For me personally I just cheated on exams. I would read the books before the exam and hide all the answers in my head. Then when I saw the questions on the test all I had to do was look in my brain and pull out the answer. Never even got caught, it's a foolproof system. Another great way to cheat is to go to class and listen to the professor, those idiots are notorious for like actually telling you what's on the exam. CRAZY!
If you need to stay up all night to study for an exam then you've already made a huge mistake. Start earlier, the night before should just be a review of the stuff you've already studied. It can be done, it just takes a bit of self-discipline and time management. Sleep works wonders for the memory. Jittery ritalin heads will never out think someone who has had a good nights rest.
As for recreational drugs I suggest 40% amphetamine, 30% Hallucinogen, 30% depressant combo. Keeps you in "the zone." :)

#26 Grambo- True true true.

#24 Mike- Some non-elite crossfitters do roids too. I mean I tried testosterone just the once. Just stuck the needle in to see what it was like, you know, I was a crazy college kid. But I didn't inject it, I swear!

For real though I'd like to see the empirical evidence you have to back up your statements. What is "most" trainers, >50% ? I think your logic is stretched pretty thin on that one.

#30

Priceless.

Americans, more than any other country in the world, focus on short-term benefits. We tend to be lazy, impatient, and greedy. We want to eat delicious food, to smoke, to drink, to crash diet over a weekend, to buy a big house we can’t afford, and now to learn more without additional effort.

This disregard for future consequences is very dangerous. It can lead to disease, poverty, war, and potentially the extinction of the human race.

If society as a whole starts using these drugs society will increase, decrease or maintain its current intelligence from one generation to the next – with only 1 of 3 being beneficial I don’t really like those odds.

i think drugs are a very personal choice i choose not to use it but that was my choice...
I don't think they are terrible if you know how to take them...sorry for my lame english

take caffine and booze off the market and THEN you're allowed to talk to me about "morality" and legality.

#23 dcdoc:

It seems that you are arguing that people should avoid enhancement because it is used as a substitute for hard work. I would argue, however, that when used in a competitive environment, these drugs would result in more work being done. Assume for the moment, also, that we are talking about a drug that has been proven to be safe in the long term and that does actually allow one to be more productive. I realize that Adderall is not this perfect drug considering the lack of understanding of its long term effects as well as the effects of any post-use "hangover" or addiction. (Adderall is, after all, a mixture of amphetamine salts)

Consider this question: Would this perfect enhancement drug lose its immoral title if it provided an overall social good? One experience that I can speak about where this may apply is medical school. For those of you unfamiliar with the medical education system, the first two years of school are spent learning the entire body of Western medical knowledge, after which this knowledge is applied through clinical experience.
The task presented to students is an impossible one, and this impossibility is fully recognized by instructors. All of the material is presented, and it is left to the students to do the best they can to learn it. Failure at the fundamental task is guaranteed; course grades are determined by how you perform compared to your peers, not whether you were able to learn everything.

Given this situation, I could imagine, if the use of the perfect enhancement drug became acceptable, that students would use the drug as a way to learn more of the information that every doctor should know, not as an easy ticket to more free time. The competitive environment would prevent that. If the effects of this drug on one's ability to learn were significant, then better doctors would result. Is that not, in some sense, a public good, and therefore acceptable?

#37

Well said!

I'd love to see steroids and other performance enhancing drugs completely banned from CrossFit games competition.

A juiced up 2 minute Fran just isn't the same as a 3 minute natural Fran.

330 on the Deadlift??? Caity Matter could beat my ass!!!!

#39
I'd love to see steroids and other performance enhancing drugs completely banned from CrossFit games competition.

Are they allowed?

I find it odd that within the Nature Journal there is promotion for drug use to increase our intelligence. I just see that as ironic.

It would be fascinating to leave the question of performance enhancing drugs decided by open investigation and experimentation by those willing and interested.

CrossFit is NOT a high stakes professional competition yet. The money and career incentives are driving most, if not all, of the drug-taking of professional athletes. If we could have a situation without those incentives (we do), it would be interesting to see documented what drugs the athletes use and what the results are.

(My condolences to the authoritarians and simpletons who equate morality with obeying arbitrary rules. You're missing a whole world of responsible, intelligent and ethical adulthood.)

As a matter of policy: forbidding drug use keeps the research constrained and stupid, which keeps unhealthy drugs in use much longer, and prevents us from demonstrating that natural athletes can perform better -- if, in fact, they can (My idealistic prejudice is that natural is ultimately better, but I might be wrong. We don't know because we're still ignorant authoritarians.) But the laws and rules do very little to stop cheating, and they create an industry around the efforts to conceal the cheating -- and prevent us from discovering whether the drugs are useful.

I shouldn't have to say this, but please note that I am not pro drugs; neither personally nor culturally. I'm pro science, and pro freedom. Most importantly, I know that knowledge is our most important resource and that there is a direct and positive correlation between our collective knowledge and our quality of life. If you ban the discovery process, you have arrogated power, feeding a corrupt desire to control others, and you've harmed everyone. People really do die in multitudes from your power lust, from a range of unnecessary black markets from back alley abortions to the criminal industry created by drug prohibition.

I always enjoy Todd in the videos.....and Caity is so right: "the quicker and harder you pull, the faster you get off"

....speaking of rest day morals.....

Dave (#34), you wrote:

"Americans, more than any other country in the world, focus on short-term benefits. We tend to be lazy, impatient, and greedy. We want to eat delicious food, to smoke, to drink, to crash diet over a weekend, to buy a big house we can’t afford, and now to learn more without additional effort."

This is interesting. Is this your opinion or can you support any of this? I have found that the problems of modern society are pretty ubiquitous. Often people are more comfortable ascribing them to the culture they are most familiar with because they are familiar with it. Can you talk about other countries you have lived in and how their focuses, tendencies and wants differ?

If you can, I'd love to see it. If not, this seems like a rant without much factual backbone.

For example, Albania had its entire financial system threatened by ponzi schemes in 1997. To me that seems like an example of greed and impatience far worse than what you accuse us of. The housing bubble is spoken about as if its a US crisis but Spain is seeing a similar bubble... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_unrest_in_Albania

You think the US is lazy? Have you traveled to other countries? I its my personal experience (thought I would not present it as fact) that the US is pretty industrious. Based on 2004 OECD stats the US ranked 8 out of 28 countries in average hours of work.

I don't know how we rank on patience, impatience and greed...

Do you really think we are on a path towards "the potential extinction of the human race?" That sounds pretty extreme

Looking for Rogue weight lifting shoe sales/bargains. Please respond if you know where to find a good deal on these shoes.

Does anybody know if Chuck Taylor shoes are plenting of support for weight lifting?

Wow, those are some interesting responses.

Personally, I think our society is over-medicated as it and the obsession with pharmaceutical solutions is leaving us in a rut (what happens when you can't get your pills?). Honestly, the disciplined mind and body approach does seem to work better over a longer period and are less prone to side-effects than pharmaceutical solutions (Crossfit is a pretty good example in and of itself).

Really, I would like to see more research into the subject, but until there is good data, I would say leave it off the legal list. As for law and morality, isn't obeying the law, even seemingly petty ones like the speed limit, morally right? Nothing that effects us as an indivdual can avoid effecting those around us. Alcohol and narcotics are exellent examples of how easily individual choices can cause lethal social results.

I also have this unnerving sense of "A Brave New World", but maybe that's just me.

#7 Chris,

If these people were really the smartest people on the planet, they wouldn't need these drugs. Secondly, drug-enhanced concentration does not make you smarter. I'd be curious about the source of this article.

Anyone else get paranoid reading that article?... hmm... I'm hungry...

Food is a drug. When you eat, all kinds of substances are introduced into your body that would have not been there without it. Especially steak. I say we ban all steak, chicken, fish, oats, fish oils, saline, nuts, and berries... if your body didn't make it, we shouldn't consume it

and you all seem to forget than education is mostly based on memorization, not critical thinking. Think about it: Memorize every single law and you become the best lawyer. Memorize every single disease and treatment and you become the best doctor. No one requires brains, only memorization. Unfortunately, not everyone has a photographic memory.

I have to say as much as I respect Caity....I *hate* the buck-eyes....heh She should've went to Michigan... :P

Multibomer....apparently you've never dealt with a good engineer, physicist, or mathematician then.....You realize that that memorization is not the value of education or intelligence. It's only a factor not the result.

A drug is a drug, every drug that has an effect on human performance, also has the opposite effect when it wears out!

That is sugar makes you refreshed for a while, and then the effect subsides and...

Amfetamin or any other substance that affects dopamin etc (neurological transmittors?) is no different! The human body strives to keep everything in balance, too much of somehting and the body shuts off it´s own system. Inject testosterone, body stops producing, oh now you got a problem!

Its funny (or sad) that its always the drugusers that claim they the drugs are good and everyone is using them. Anyone that know the sciencereport that examined the correlation between numbers of cigaretts smoked per day, and the belief of correlation between cancer and smoking?

Nonsmokers see a huge correlation between smoking and lungcancer.

The ones who use a package a day, sees almost no correlation between smoking and lungcancer.

The human mind is a wonderful thing, take good care of it! :-)

The problem with allowing people an opportunity to use cognitive enhancing drugs is like allowing people the option of a weight control drug. They get lazy! Why would I bother to get the proper rest and learn how to concentrate when I can take a drug to get me through. Next thing you know you've got doctors and lawyers taking them and not properly monitoring the effects, somebody takes too many and makes a drastic mistake at their job. You just can't control when and how people would take them.

The assumption that legalizing the use of amphetamines such as Adderall, Ritalin or any of the other stimulants used to treat specific medical conditions is a benefit to society by the enhancement of cognitive function is probably not valid.

Why could the use of currently restricted drugs for enhancing a healthy persons ability to learn be bad? On the surface, the answer seems to be it a great idea. Within a small group in a controlled environment you can probably create the conditions to validate the position. Unfortunately, life isn't a controlled environment. A good portion of the ADHD drugs are controlled because they are methamphetamine. When used prescriptively (under close monitoring of dosage), they counteract a documented physiological condition. The pill doesn't make you smarter, it (using a simplistic term) keeps your brain from switching channels like a TV set so you can focus on one thing at a time. Improper dosage will get you all jacked up (I know, I take Adderall). In a person whose brain function is "normal" (I speak in terms of the appropriate chemical firing of the system) you get a chemical high similar to cocaine, meth, or one of the other stimulants. The authors see as not a bad thing in moderation. They believe the "juice is worth the squeeze".

I don't believe it is. Not everyone has the same academic potential. Simply put, you have 25 watt, 40 watt, 75 watt and 100 watt bulbs. No amount of chemical stimulation is going to get the 25 watt bulb up to the 100 watt level. Additionally, you run the risk of abuse. That risk is not the same as a mere over consumption of caffeine. You are talking about methamphetamine's, which create a strong chemical dependency when improperly used and even supervised are potentially addictive.

Learning is not a disease that needs to be cured. Academic achievement is based on discipline and hard work. Not everyone is or will be on the Honor Roll. Let's correlate this to CrossFit. I'm sure with the legalization and use of steroids under a physician's care, we could be become better athletes. To what real benefit? Your highly competitive CrossFitter may want to get stronger faster, but are the risks worth the benefit? You already have people that started steroids for enhancement purposes in body building and power lifting. They don't just go on a cycle, they live on continuous cycles and go way over the dosage to get better results. The bulk of the users will never be Olympians, Mr. Olympia, Mr. USA or whatever, but they'll chance shriveling their sack like a raisin and risk a stroke to what end? Vanity.

I don't believe endorsing the legalization of amphetamines for the supposed benefits of increased learning for the masses is worth the overall risk that is associated with it.

I loved comment 13, Reagan. If it makes money, then the Gov. doesn't care at all how dangerous a drug is. Can someone PLEASE explain why cigarettes and alcohol are legal but marijuana is not? I have a sneaking suspicion that it has to do with the fact that it's anyone can grow weed so taxing it is a bit more difficult, whereas tobacco and alcohol are very involved and expensive processes and thus easily taxed. Not a very constitutional or “freedom loving" way of determining legality. My biggest problem is with the blatant hypocrisy of the whole issue. To anyone with an above room-temperature IQ, a government that takes the above stance just looks stupid. We throw around words like freedom and liberty and then look down on people who actually live that way.

Oh, and caffeine IS a drug.

G'day all,

I have not been able to post in a while, but this topic sparks interest to me. I do believe to each individual, they should have the freedom to decide on the use of these drugs or not. However, that doesn't mean that they should be legal in any sense. As well, with crossfit, the games should have rules in place for legal reasons. Crossfit backs a natural diet, promotes solid health, fitness and nutrition. The allowance of this drug or any other potentially harmful substance, would take away from what it promotes the begin with. If someone decides for personal reasons to use these drugs, then that is them on personal terms. If those very people want to be a part of competition at the games, per say, then they should abide by rules set for fairness, health and integrity of an idea that has taken a strong hold.

Semper Fidelis

Cody

There has been little said in today's comments about good nutrition. ADHD? How about these people try to actually eat, you know, food. REAL food. Not Red Bull, french fries, Little Debbie's, and Coors Light. People of all ages cannont concentrate because they eat stuff that a rat would pass up if given the option.

As for drug use of any kind, I'm all for it-as long as you stay in your house and don't go out in public. That's when it becomes a problem that the government must intervene because now the drug user could be putting other people's life in danger. Because regardless of what kind of drug it is, anyone can have a different reaction to it.

Eat real food, go to bed and stay there for at least 8 hours, and do the WOD.

This might just be me, but whenever I had taken a "cognitive enhancer" I would end up concentrating on everything EXCEPT studying...cleaning my house, talking to people, etc.

Besides, this is an awfully slippery slope we're talking about here.

I for one would not be opposed to drug testing at the games. Not really for the purpose of singling people out but for the average person who follows the main site WODs. I'd hate to see the games go down the same road as competitive bodybuilding, pro cycling or any other sport where performance enhancing drugs are rampantly abused, and as a result, turn people off from the program.

Good point Paul, if people just ate right a lot of their inability to focus and concentrate would probably be fine.

I think that people that feel that drugs make them better... have not tried hard enough... what ever happened to just focusing.... or eating and dieting correctly to lose weight.... This concentration talk is just like all the diet talks.... there is no magical diet pill out there that is going to let you eat poorly and lose weight... people need to just start taking personal responsibility and bit the bullet and work hard to get results... anything that is worth getting whether it be better concentration to do better on a test... or a good fran time comes from hard work and determination..

Comment #55 - Posted by: zen Trainer
--Interesting assertion - are you saying that "we" can control these things now? The article points out, indirectly, that "we" cannot control them now; iow, the current legal restrictions on usage for enhancement only provide the illusion of 'control'. The more specific question is whether, upon decriminalization, abuse of these types of drugs would worsen.

#16 – moderation is an interesting and valuable concept, but notoriously difficult for humans to identify and accomplish in their behavior.

I enjoyed the libertarian posts, particularly #14 and #44. However, for Kirez, wrt back alley abortions - isn't that just another bit of being free to choose one's own risk/reward profile? I don't think that makes a libertarian's case for unrestricted abortion. Legally, the state is obligated to defend the rights of individuals; this is its primary reason for existence. Thus, if the unborn person is legally a person, the die is cast.

This article makes me think of the same thought I always have wrt to the topic of decriminalization of drugs (and I concur with the poster above who posited that one day we'll look at drug criminalization like you and I look at 'prohibition'): would there be more or less abuse of drugs? How could we know that answer (for example, was drug abuse more or less common prior to criminalization of some drugs?)? How could that negative eventuality (increased drug abuse after decriminalization), be weighed against the negative eventuality of increased criminality based on black market for illegal drugs (this is a massive problem resulting in increased murder, corruption of law enforcement, and massive incentives and funding to find ways to bypass US Customs)? How could the impact of drug based incarcerations be brought into the evaluation (high cost to incarcerate both in taxes and in ‘human capital’, but arguably incarceration is the only tool for reduction of violent crime, see “Freakonomics”)?

The evaluation of the balance in these equations is almost never conducted in the public sphere as the topic is too emotionally “mined” for most to evaluate objectively.

On another subject, given how poorly (manipulated and corrupted by political influence) the current govt funding of ‘science’ is working wrt to climate change and food/health/nutrition (and ‘medical science’ has been complicit or cooperative in this) , can or should any of us trust this sort of topic to further investigation by any of the authorities the article cites? IOW, the author posits that there are trustworthy authorities (govt, medical authority, etc) to which “we” can submit the task of evaluating health and efficacy of drugs for cognitive enhancement – but based on the current performance of these authorities, there’s little reason to believe they would generate a valuable outcome.

Science is too important to be entrusted to govt.

More stray thoughts coming re nutrition and impact on why we 'need' cognitive enhancement, but they'll have to wait. Paul

go chargers!

If the pill let you live until 150, who wouldn't take it? Illegal does not equal immoral. Slavery used to be legal...

I am excited to see where we go as a species, with technological,pharmacological and biological techniques, I just refuse to be the guinea pig.

I think the argument that not knowing the long term effects of many of these drugs makes them potentially dangerous and probably not a good idea for the average consumer - holds a lot of water. This compounded by the inclination of many to want to pop a pill instead of doing the hard work is too easy a lure for many to bite on, potentially at their own peril. If the end consumer knows of all the risks involved and wants to go ahead anyway, then god bless. But as Paul mentioned a lot of the marketing and political biased "science" that goes on these days only proves what the drug maker or government officials wants everyone to hear.

I wonder if a lot of folks looking for stronger cognitive firepower are getting a good 8 hours of sleep per night and following a truly healthy diet and exercise program like Crossfit prescribes. I would wager that it is not too many and this would probably be a better way for people to get more from what they have brain-wise. Myself included.

Now if they would just publish a study that shows that beer makes you smarter.....

Sure you might take drugs in order to raise cognative ability, but will it help with wisdom.

A "smart" person with the ability to think through all sorts of "problems" might be great, but that is also assuming his logic, assumptions, and motives are proper.

Case in point: Al Gore, Global Warming, and Carbon Credits.

With a faulty sense of logic, false assumptions, and under-handed motives; here lies a perfect storm of idolization, hoax, and fraud. All in the name of fear.

"Intelligent" people all over the planet are fooled by their own sense of apocolyptic demise and self-loathing. I do not think that "Enhancement" would help. If anything it imight be the very cause of this foolishness.

I could go further into President Elect Obama, Hope and Change and the appointment of, basically, the whole former Clinton adminstration to the Obama administration. However, I want to watch it play out, with popcorn in hand, as the lemings run off the cliff chanting "hope...change...hope...change..."

CCTJOEY, excellent couple of points. I almost had water come out of my nose from your last sentence! ha ha

cctjoey. Using your logic.

another case in point:

George W Bush, WMD in Iraq, Fighting the war on Terror and making the US a safer place by invading Iraq.

Again Faulty sense of logic, false and even manufactured assumptions, underhanded motives. Hoax and fraud. You betcha.

I wonder what kind of drugs the Bush Cheney administration was on?

Plenty of Neo-con lemmings have run off the cliffs in the last 4 years. What are you chanting as you fall back to earth?

# 46 mb

My overall point is that we simply don’t know long-term outcomes of our actions.

It is not extreme to suggest the possible extinction of the human race. It is actually the end game of every debate.

Example 1: multiple generations
Cognitive enhancements drugs (CE) are taken by Gen 1, Gen 2 has decreased cognitive ability; Gen 3 has decreased ability and so on. Eventually the population cannot sustain itself with such decreased ability.

Example 2: one generation
CE drugs result in an “intelligence race” between several industrialized nations. Tensions grow as each nation tries to develop and refine its human capital. Theft, sabotage, and outright destruction of rival nations CE research and production facilities results in military response from host nations, which escalates to nuclear war.

As globalization brings countries closer and closer together much more attention needs to be paid to long-term effects of new technologies.

#69 dtt
Empirically we have been safer since invading Iraq.
No attacks on US soil. It worked.

#48 MB
Using your logic the most athletic people on earth would not take performance enhancing drugs?

#2 Get off your high moral horse. Go 3 days with out your beloved coffee and come back and talk to me with your withdraw head ache.
Mormons think your coffee is immoral & would probably outlaw it if given a chance.

CCT Joey-The number of people who will ever obtain any kind of wisdom is to small for any kind of statistical significance. Lets not build policy around the exception. Other than that good stuff as always.

Caity, you are incredible. Congrats on winning the 2008 Games, but be ready to relinquish your title. Cali is bringing our Women's title back home in 2009!
-----------------------
s'more, you're totally welcome. I love thinking of ways to torture you. Developing these mini-WODs for you and seeing you post back is just like a kick of stimulants in the veins... good correlation since we're speaking of drug use for the benefit of performance. :)
------------------------
"...How about these people try to actually eat, you know, food. REAL food. ... People of all ages cannont concentrate because they eat stuff that a rat would pass up if given the option."

Comment #58 - Posted by: Paul

Great point, Paul. Most typical Americans (the type of people I am most surrounded by in my day-to-day) do not give food a second thought. Where they *DO* think of nutrition, usually it's the erroneous thinking of "I need more carbs to feel better" or something along that line.
-----------------------
"It would be fascinating to leave the question of performance enhancing drugs decided by open investigation and experimentation by those willing and interested..."

"(My condolences to the authoritarians and simpletons who equate morality with obeying arbitrary rules. You're missing a whole world of responsible, intelligent and ethical adulthood.)"

Comment #44 - Posted by: Kirez at January 10, 2009 10:25 PM

Kirez, you articulated my thought and opinions perfectly. Your whole post is very well thought out and written. We should have a beer or two together in Aromas! :)

Just a couple of points in regard to the rest day article:

I'm just going to comb over some points in the article and give my rebuttal. So you know, I am against taking cognitive enhancing drugs for "normies"

"drug abuse is a major social ill, and both medicinal and recreational drugs are regulated because of possible harms to the individual and society"
The author tries to make the point that given certain regulations, any drug could be made legal. This may be the case, however, I would argue it may be legal but certainly not safe.

As stated in a previous post, even "harmless" drugs have negative side effects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine (WFS)

Just because it is legal or illegal does not necessarily mean it is right or wrong.

"As for an appeal to the 'natural', the lives of almost all living humans are deeply unnatural; our homes, our clothes and our food — to say nothing of the medical care we enjoy — bear little relation to our species' 'natural' state"

This example the author makes is moot. Drugs are invasive. These "unnatural living conditions" are not. They are not comparable.

*The following is observational/anecdotal with only one person. It is not a powerful argument, but I feel should still be mentioned*

"Enhancement in children raises additional issues related to the long-term effects on the developing brain"

I knew a kid from college who was put on Ritalin when he was a small child. It destroyed his Circadian Rhythm and he now has no natural pattern as when to sleep. Who could have seen that one coming?

"Does it actually improve learning or does it just temporarily boost exam performance? "

Again, an anecdote. I had a roommate in college who used Addy (Adderall) to stay up all night and write papers. He told me that he was able to focus a lot better. Not necessarily learn more, but not be distracted. Now that I think of it, I would actually like to see his grade on the paper.

*End of observation/anecdotal experiences*

"Like all new technologies, cognitive enhancement can be used well or poorly."
Again, the author tries to group these drugs into the same categories as laptops, automobiles, and satellites. This is not the case since all of those do not affect the bodies regulation of chemicals (and their reactions).

#7 - Chris
I know a lot of smart people that do stupid things.

#51 - Multibomber
I would agree that early education is memorization but after the foundation is built the trend starts to become less and less in middle and high school.
Learning "how" to take a test as opposed to what is on it is one example that comes to mind.

#56 - Bob in Kabul
I agree

- - - - - -

I think that using these drugs is like using wrist straps. They're good if you have an injury, and they will get you those quick gains, but they're not a good measure of your unaided performance.

Jakers it would be great if it were that simple. What worked in Iraq was getting rid of Saddam and his regime. However Saddam never attacked us on our soil. So to make the jump you just made to the war in Iraq making us safer at home is wishful thinking at best.

My point is that the people who masterminded 9-11 were not in Iraq nor were they involved with Saddam and we knew this before we went in. We knew many of them were operating out of Afghanistan but that the Bush admin used the war on Terror theme to push forward their separate agenda against Iraq by creating false motives to invade. (WMD, nukes, and Al-Queda links)

Now if you said the war in Afghanistan has done a lot to thwart possible attacks on US soil I think you would have a much stronger case as there we were clearly going after people affiliated with the those who made the attacks on our soil and were were able to disrupt their operations significantly.

My response to this article is "there is no such thing as a free lunch". The tachyphylaxis component of every simulant as well as the "slippery slope" to necessity to perform "life" is obvious. Today these individuals need "speed" for that big test, next week just to "get through the day". We have an obligation to protect society from the consequences of pharmaceutical grade stimulants.

Those of you who argue for your righs of choice and freedom and "you can't legislate morality". What about murder, we ligislated that its a crime, is that relative too. Where does your "relativism" end?

I am a bit surprised that the CrossFit community which espouses natural, functional, persistently tenacious approach to all other life endeavors, would not dispel this nonsense when it comes to "cognitive enhancement". Are we also open to individual choice for "performance enhancement" in sport and fitness?

#51 Multibomber (?)

Are you really that naive to think that a "photographic" memory makes one the "best" MD? If that were the case we'll be replacing all MD's with computers b/c since there is no thinking involved, a simple medical software program should do fine. I agree that stimulants augment memory but life is all about critical thinking and you can't "stimulate" your way to wisdom!!

Comment #63 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 202 44 yoa a
"Science is too important to be entrusted to govt."

I might argue that science is too important to be left to the scientists; at least, the scientists who authored this article. My primary concern with this article was the overriding social-engineering tone of the authors. They seem to advocate using these enhancement drugs to the greater benefit of society and go so far as to say that under some circumstances it should be permissible to require certain classes of people to take these drugs.

What this sets us up for then, is a scientific argument for a government that mandates what we can and must put in our bodies. Exactly the opposite, I imagine, of what you'd hope to see as an outcome of decriminalization. I believe that the authors mistake the power of free market forces when they suggest that judicious application of some limited resource (these drugs) might "level the playing field" at a societal level.

Another issue I have with this article: decriminalization of a drug because some people are already taking that drug is the stupidest argument ever ("existing law should be brought into line with emerging social norms").

Fringe elements will always be willing to push into fringe behaviors, setting aside potential risks to their long-term health (or liberty, in the case of going to prison) in order to gain some perceived short term benefit. This is true for people who use Adderall off-label, shoot up heroin or just take up free solo rock climbing (not illegal, but certainly a fringe behavior from the perspective of risk:benefit assessment).

Decriminalizing an activity results in de facto endorsement of that activity. If 20% of students on a campus are willing to engage in illegal performance enhancement, many more (let's say 70% for the sake of argument) will be willing to engage in that same behavior if it's legal. And once 70% of students are on enhancement, what of the 30% who are not? To stay competitive, they are de facto compelled into a situation where they must take a now ubiquitous drug.

So now we have a situation where a drug with unknown long-term consequences has become prevalent and accepted, even de facto required for success in many arenas. (Like caffeine, but with much less historical president-we have a pretty good idea what a lifetime of coffee drinking does to you.) Further, the government position becomes that certain classes of people must take it in order to better the greater good of society.

Brave New World, indeed.

#67 CCTJoey and #69 dtt

Thanks for covering both sides of this. Peer reviewed science shows that global warming is not a hoax. But it can’t be proven…just like gravity or evolution or any theory – it seems to check out right now but that doesn’t mean it will tomorrow.

#71 jakers

While empirical evidence does show that there have been no terrorist attacks on the US since invading Iraq it is WAY too early to say “it worked”.

Arming and training the Afghan mujahideen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone) in the 1980s worked all the way until 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden) when it didn't.

...allegedly

Hi guys, first post ever. Interesting article. As a senior at a liberal arts college in Michigan, I have seen extensive use of these substances by my peers. Specifically, adderall, ritalin and concerta. One of the guys that I live with has a legitimate RX for adderall. I can't tell you how many people come through our house looking to purchase the stuff. It's astounding.

#71 - (in response to #2) How can you not make a distinction between these illegal drugs and caffeine? Yes, the body's response to these substances is similar, but our society has deemed one acceptable, and the others unacceptable (without an RX). Moral or immoral, that's the law.

For those who need them, these drugs are a medical necessity. For others, they provide an unfair advantage. Additionally, these drugs provide kids with an incentive to lead unhealthy lifestyles.

dtt, if an ex-murderer puts their hand in their jacket pocket and says he has a gun, do you wait for him to pull it out before you act?
Saddam used WMD's on his own people, (genocide at Halabja, etc.), Iran, and then said he still had them after the first gulf war. Have you ever spoken to or read accounts of the first soldiers to enter Iraq? Captured scientists were convinced many of the Iraqi plants were manufacturing WMD's. Saddam wasn't allowing inspectors in the country, and on the few occasions where he did, they prohibited from inspecting certain sites.
People bitch and complain when we don't stop genocide and massacres, and then they complain when we do intervene. I think some people just like to bitch, instead of getting off the couch (or out of the weight room) and being proactive.

Certainly one cannot doubt the existence of a placebo effect to any substance the subject or psychologist thinks is cognitive enhancing. But until a double blind study on matched, healthy individuals demonstrates a statistically significant cognitive enhancement to any ingestible or injectable substance, skepticism demands that one doubt its very existence. Until that happens, the Greely et al. article is equivalent to a treatise on who has the rights to the Fountain of Youth. The article is erudite palaver.

Speed works to enhance learning because you learn more awake. Ritalin works to improve memory because zombies are not distracted by their lack of self-control. Contrary to the article, Ritalin doesn’t enhance the executive function; Ritalin substitutes for it, and will prove to cause it permanently to atrophy. LSD and ‘dust enhanced creativity because hallucinations are so original.

The fact that a market exists for an illicit drug market is proof of the existence of a well-established subculture. It is not proof of any alleged efficacy. This observation has broad applications. E.g., heavy metal and rap are not music. The moral is don’t give your kids discretionary funds.

A decent amount of sleep, self discipline, and a meritorious curriculum would blow away the microscopic enhancement contemplated for cognitive enhancing substances. Too often today the drugs come first to blow away the virtues and with them, education.

Hunger is a great motivator. Hard work is worth a good 10 points of IQ. Which brings to mind the fact that IQ is arguably not measurable in the first place, much less its enhancement.

But let’s put aside the moral issues to consider a real one. A well-earned Nobel prize awaits the chemist who discovers a substance that counteracts the cognitive deficits of Alzheimer’s.

I have personally taken such enhancing drugs, but like one of the earlier posts says, I never took these unless I waited till the last night and needed to pull an all-nighter. I never relied on them when I actually spread out an assignment and had time to work.
Do they help? - YES - Did they make me get better grades - only b/c I needed them for all nighters. I averaged the same grades on assignments that I spent time on. Has there been much research regarding the safety of long time use? I feel these drugs only make you more efficient, not smarter. But what is the safety ramifications of using repeatedly? If I keep getting more time in less time, will i EVENTUALLY BURN OUT - SLEEP FOR 4 DAYS TO RECOVER - who knows, It could be as safe as water. I personally prefer to be natural unless it is prescribed.

sorry - keep getting more done in less time

#71 jakers,

Drugs for enhancing athletic performance do so in a completely different way than these drugs that "enhance" mental performance. Drugs like Ritalin and Adderall don't increase your intelligence, they increase your ability to concentrate. The two are not the same.

I'm one of those "healthy" people that took Adderall off label. Most of the people who talk about cognitive enhancements as a way to be "lazy" really have no idea what they are talking about. I was a straight 'A' student in high school, 3 sport Varsity Letterman, Academic decathlete, and the sole recipient of the Governor's Youth Volunteer of the year award.
Adderall didn't allow me to study less. It allowed me to study more. I didn't take it stay up all night, but to help me study for two hours at a time during the afternoon. It didn't make me smarter or help my memory during tests, but it did help me stay focused during 90 minute engineering tests.
This last semester I stopped taking Adderall because I'm going in the military (it's a banned substance), and I was no dumber than before. I didn't have more trouble "learning". Rather, I was unable to study for long periods of time. So instead of being able to do all my studying in a 2 hour block during the afternoon, I'd wind up studying into the night, and not be able to do anything else that day. While I was still able to get a 4.0, it came at a cost to everything else. It's like using a sail instead when you have a diesel engine, you can still get where you're going, but it's going to take a lot more time and effort.

I apparently need a performance enhancer of some kind, because my head is spinning like Dorothy's house when the twister hit it. You guys are good.

Too early for a beer, but there's football on the tube so that's practically a mandate right?...Right?

If I only had a brain...

DTT, I am chanting "It Worked!" "It Worked!"

If we make it to 20 January without major incedent, I will be right....again.

Global Warming:

"Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age" - http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0

"Slovenia with record low temperature -49" - http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/5026/2/

"Life At Negative 78 Degrees In Alaska" - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99162528

Yup, put those coats away...

I must say I was pretty pumped with my time on todays WOD....24:00.

Yes, I was able to continue todays workout for a full 24 hours.

Starting crossfit tomorrow, can't wait to join all of you in suffering!

Some great comments so far. My question would pertain to history.

What was thought of the widespread use of antidepressants when the drugs started to become mainstream? Anxiety medication is highly prescribed.

On the other hand, there was a really smart guy named Sigmund Freud who truly believed in the use of cocaine to enhance cognitive abilities.

Either way it boils down to long term risk/benefit analysis. If, after 30 years of use the guy who took Adderall extensively in college doesn't neeeeeeedddd it to concentrate and focus then hell, more power to him.

For now, moderation and limited use is probably the best course of action. Don't take it if you can't handle it.

F/22/5'6"/140

CF Mississauga WOD
50 burpees
10 thrusters @55 (75 men)
40 b
20 t
...
10 b
50 t
37:45
I'm going to kill Mark and Eric.

I must say though, this time around on the zone is awesome. I haven't gone carb crazy on veggies and fruit, and I have been laying off the peanut butter completely (no idea how long that's going to last). And one huge thing I was lacking was sleep, and I have been getting much more of that. Yay!

crossfit m.d.

Your question about a perfect enhancement drug made me think. The simple fact is that there is no perfect anything exception of Christ. I fear that in the persuit of perfection of drugs we will open a box we will not be able to shut. If it is a drug it has side effects bar none. So a perfect "anytype" of drug is not a drug but something we have never experienced or have a word for. For those using sometype of enhancement drug for performance on test or physically when it is not rx what you are doing is not only dangerous but illegal. In general there is right and wrong that grey area does not always exist. It is usually us trying to justify the means to the end remember that.

I heart Taz and all she did to make my morning birthday the best ever!
Love you grl!
~J~

For all those out there with experience with the Zone diet: coupled with a daily (plus rest) CrossFit workouts, when would one normally begin to see results from eating in the Zone and doing CF, assuming that you're strict with measurements and rarely missing meals?

#79 Jeff Glassman,

Very well put. I couldn't agree more.

"Ritalin works to improve memory because zombies are not distracted by their lack of self-control."

Bullseye, meet arrow. I nominate this for quote of the day.

Who all's out there at Ft. Bragg?

Sorry for the off-topic but LT & I will be out there for 2 weeks at the end of the month. We'd love to get in some WODs w/ a local crew. Psyched that we'll be in CONUS to see the BJ Penn/GSP fight & have some beers!

P.S. Back Squat PR last night: BS 1RM 315# (PR)!

#77 Dave
[While empirical evidence does show that there have been no terrorist attacks on the US since invading Iraq it is WAY too early to say “it worked”.]

So is it to early to say that it didn't?

#74 dtt
Where did all that oil for food money go? There is about a billion that's unaccounted for. Terrorism while it appears grass roots is expensive work.

#82
[Drugs for enhancing athletic performance do so in a completely different way than these drugs that "enhance" mental performance.]

But the end effect is the same in the field of choice.
Instead of athletic performance if we substitute Jeff's Fountain of Youth scenario how would Testosterone and HGH be any different than Ritalin or Adderal?

#83 AlaskaMania

I like what he has to say.

I feel its the same scenario for athletic performance 'enhancers'

A guy who can run a 4.4 40yd dash can run a 4.4 40. He doesn't need drugs for that. What he needs the enhancers for are to be able to run at all in week 16 of crashing into 300lb linemen. At the elite level it is the recovery that is most beneficial so you can practice every day and play every week.
The enhancements will move you along the bell curve but not enough to make you a standout if your not one naturally.

In no way are legality and morality tied to one another. Are honor killings in Saudi Arabia moral simply because that's the law of the land? I think not. I reject all such claims of moral relativism.

You know what's immoral? Using armed men hired by the government to regulate what substances a person can ingest. Immoral are the pharmaceutical companies that lobby Congress to pass laws that regulate the pharmaceutical industry thereby enacting policies that only the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies have the money and resources with which to comply.

Initiating force against individuals that choose to act in ways that don't harm others is immoral. Show me a victim and I'll show you a crime.

#79 - Jeff Glassman --- great post!

If any of you on the boards want to dive more into this issue, I highly suggest checking out the documentary Bigger, Faster, Stronger (you can probably rent it at your local Blockbuster or check it out at http://www.biggerstrongerfastermovie.com/). While the main "performance enhancing drug" it investigates is steroids, it does discuss other performance enhancers like cognitive-enhancing drugs for students, amphetamines for air force pilots, beta-blockers for musicians, etc.

If you were told that you needed a drug to provide for your family would you take it? In my personal opinion (and I should preface this by saying that I don't take any performance enhancing drugs - unless you count whole food), I don't think there is anything morally wrong for a well informed person (say in this case a college student seeking cognitive enhancement) to utilize those resources and accept the effects (good/bad) and the responsibility of their choice. I'm positive there are plenty of Crossfitters (well-known and unknown) out there that have made a choice to take one of a number of performance enhancing drugs (whether it be alderall, ritalin, steroids,amphetamines (go-pills), etc) and they've made that decision as informed and responsible adults. That being said, the results/impact of consistently following the Crossfit/Zone Diet are far superior (both in the long and short-term) in all the aforementioned areas (cognitive, physical performance, etc) than the response any known drug could produce by itself. However, those that choose to use any sort of drug to enhance their performance should not be condemned or judged because they do so - they made the choice and they're going to have to live with the ultimate outcome and responsibilities of those actions for the rest of their lives.

#97

I'm not sure how you can compare a government allowing an honor killing to enforcing a law against the illegal use of controlled substances.

The first is an example of permitting a harmful act be conducted against someone, and the other is the prevention of a potentially harmful act being conducted against oneself, as well as having a secondary effect on others.

The Saudi Arabian government does not perform honor killings, it merely permits the act to be committed. Since the Saudis are a royal kingdom, the "Subjects" of the kingdom don't get a vote on what they believe to be moral or immoral. Whatever has been interpreted as OK by sharia law is permitted. Something that we as Americans find morally objectionable. You say that by virtue of it being legal or permitted, the act of an honor killing is moral relativism.

However, you also state that the prevention of the illegal use (as decided by the freely elected government, by the people, for the people) of a regulated substance that when misused can cause harm to yourself and potentially others immoral? That doesn't make sense. It seems to me that you are using moral relativism to substantiate your view that it should be OK for you to put whatever you want into your body. That same argument is used to support abortion. "It's my body and it's my choice". Well, a fetus doesn't get a voice, and he/she is being hurt. Even if you believe that a fetus is an "it", "it" is still being killed, eliminated, exterminated, murdered, tossed out. You pick the term.

By your definition, I guess that is not immoral, thus you are using your moral relativism to support your argument. Ingestion of (controlled) substance, or whatever I want. The law keeps you from the potential to create a victim from your choice i.e. choose to drive, have accident, hurt or kill another=victim of your right to choose whatever you ingest. Oh, you didn't kill anyone but yourself? Family devastated over your death and enormous emotional pain and suffering=victim of your right to ingest. How about the example of abortion: fetus=victim "show me a victim and I'll show you a crime" crime=murder. Oh, fetus not a person? Then call it cruelty to animal, amoeba, fishy thing, whatever. There is still a victim. Weren't the dogs that Michael Vick got sent to prison for victims?

Well, I have read the article and have read the obvious controversey in everybody's responses. I'm going to go off the beaten path of the rest day drama.

Front Squats 5x5

135
155
175
190(F)

Went half way down on the 4th rd and my back completley froze on me and took my breath away. Almost dropped the weight. Totally sucked. Been sitting around sucking down ibuprofen and watching football. Luckily, tomorrow is my rest day. Hopefully I can be up in running in a day or two.

Caity you rock

DT Missoula Mt

F/24

Had to make up my 5K today, 25:50, new PR for me. Had to slow down for two lights- hmmm, next time I am going to find a new place to run.

Need to start practicing POSE and hopefully go to a cert. soon. Also, going to check out some of the endurance workouts, going to search the site now, but would love it if someone could point me in the right direction...

Thanks

are we gonna ever get another '30 or 50 muscle ups for time' WOD? I want some ring WODS i just got my rings. happy rest day.

Kudos to all who see the difference between morality and legality. Personally, I see drug use in general as an amoral (amoral not immoral) issue but I digress. However, my issue of contention is the fact that there are millions of children being forced to take these "cognitive enhancing" drugs without any choice in the matter. We have no problem shoving pills down their throats if it will make them pay attention in class. How is this any different from injecting them with steroids to make them a better t-ball player? Other than steroids are considered taboo? I am not advocating giving a child steroids. I just wish to point out the hypocrisy. Maybe we shouldn't expect a child to sit still at a desk for 6 hours out of the day under fluorescent lighting which goes against every fiber of a normal child's being. I don't think we should be so quick to blame the child's attention span, genes, or behavior. I think we should turn some of that introspect on the sadist authoritarians that are designing the american education system.

any guesses as to what tomorrow will be?

Hey guys what do you think about "BIONIC"???
5 rounds:
5 muscle-up
10 handstand push-ups
15 kb swings 1.5 pood
20 double unders

It's hardcore?

#104

I'm guessing a blind date with one of the girls.

No matter what it is, I better get some sleep or I'm going to be hating life in a couple of hours (0310 here in Afghanistan). All this debate has kept me awake tonight, but I love the mental gymnastics.

Just finished the Level 1 Gymnastics Certification lead by JEFF TUCKER, and hosted at Crossfit Lexington. What a great weekend. This was time very well spent. Tucker is a wealth of knowledge and an effective teacher. His advice on technique drastically improved my pull ups, handstands, and ring work. He also introduced new excercises we can incorporate into wods. The parallette and ring moves he taught will really improve range of motion and core strength.

Best of all, Tucker is a real fun guy to be around. He got to know everyone in the cert, and kept the class entertaining.

#95 jakers,

The end effect is not the same. Steroid use actually results in bigger muscles. Ritalin use results in a short-term increase in ability to concentrate.

As AlaskaManiac mentioned in #83, this is useful in assimilating new ideas or improving concentration while taking a test. Once the drug wears off, all you have to show for it is whatever you learned during the period of increased concentration. This might be worth a few extra points on a test. But the few points on that test are (echoing Coach's wording) only a correlate of real intelligence, and a very weak one at that.

Increased strength gotten from steroids can be applied two days later to picking up heavier weight. The increased concentration gotten from Ritalin is gone two days later. And the extra stuff you learned is only useful for whatever reason you learned it, not in the general case. It's a new piece of information, not an improved ability to learn things.

I would say using Ritalin is like going to the moon, lifting a thousand pounds, and coming back to earth. While you were on the moon, you did something you weren't able to do while on earth, but it has no effect on what you can do back on earth.

In the Fountain of Youth scenario (i.e. that drugs really did improve intelligence) you'd be right. But these drugs don't do that...which is why Jeff used the term "Fountain of Youth", something we know doesn't exist.

I’m deeply concerned that these authors conclude by saying that it is important to “think and work hard to maximize ... benefits and minimize harms” of using psychoactive drugs for learning "enhancement" when they make the following fundamental scientific error in their commentary:

“Based on our considerations, we call for a presumption that mentally competent adults should be able to engage in cognitive enhancement using drugs”

... has come before ...

“... a programme of research into the use and impacts of cognitive-enhancing drugs by healthy individuals.”

How can one possibly call for the use of these drugs in the general population when their safety has not been established?

Indeed, there is a disturbing connection between the use of psychoactive drugs and murderous behaviours. For examples, consider the students who perpetrated the massacres at Columbine High, Virginia Tech, Stockton, CA, Springfield OR and others, a mother who drowned her six children in the bath ... the list goes on.

I get that all of these events may be pure coincidence, but the pharmaceutical companies themselves often list psychosis as one of the side-effects of their psychoactive meds. In light of that, I’m sorry, #38 Crossfit MD, but your assumption of a drug that has “proven to be safe in the long term” is a fantasy, not a foundation for an opinion.

We are individuals. Each of us react to medications differently. It is simply not possible to predict the effects of a large-scale use of psychoactive drugs on an otherwise healthy population.

#58 Paul, IMO you’re right on track. Let’s see what happens when our population eats well, moves well and thinks well. As if we Crossfitters don’t already know, there are no shortcuts to optimum performance.

From my experience with my clients over the last 15 years, living a genetically congruent lifestyle will enhance a lot more than just our performance in an exam. It reduces the risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, dementia and divorce. It brings families together. It generates an awareness of self-worth and stimulates respect for the worth of others.

In short, living a live that we were designed to live brings intrinsic physical, emotional, spiritual and social wellbeing.

Try getting that from Ritalin.

Can you all please scrub out "live" in the 2nd last sentence of the previous post and replace it with "life"?

I so dislike it when my fingers get in the way of presenting a decent argument!!!

Enjoy the rest day ... I know my legs will!

Caught up with Front Squat. Peaked at 170 x 5 (PR). Details there.

Re: article.

I needed to drive through the night one weekend in October and took one Provigil. Marvelous stuff. 6 hours of alert wakefulness in the middle of the night, able to concentrate on both the driving and a very intense discussion with "The Heir". Crashed later as if I'd been up all night--'cause I'd been up all night.

FWIW I am past the time in life when I might need to do long bouts of work that requires intense concentration where I cannot prepare in advance, ie. sleep, eat, etc. to prepare. But, and this is a biggie, if I were asked to perform my job in the middle of the night after a full day awake I would take something that allowed me to work at my peak during that period of time, a time when I would otherwise be sleeping, because under those circumstances less than my total concentration, less than my best possible effort would be unacceptable, would likely result in an unacceptable outcome. I would take that something in a heartbeat.

#113 Bingo,

You're an eye surgeon, right? I love you guys! I had my LASIK done last year by a great surgeon here in Melbourne.

If I know that my doc had been awake all night the night before my surgery and he was working under the influence of Provigil or some other medication, I would be out of his surgery "in a heartbeat"!

;-)

Just completely the Gymnastic Cert at Crossfit Lexington. I just want to thank Chris for being such a gracious host. I especially want to thank Jeff Tucker for all the knowledge he imparted to us in such a short time. I will definitely see him again. A truly great man. But for all those that are thinking about doing a Gymnastic Cert I couldn't recommend a better teacher. Just don't go out to dinner with him or you'll get thrown out!
Thanks again Tucker!

Ben

Geez, two typos in three posts!

If I KNEW that my doc ...

Maybe I need some Adderal/Provigil/Ritalin!?

I did Grace instead...first time 4:01 w/ 95lbs I think thats what is prescribed for women...?

if college students didnt wait until the night before to study for their finals and instead managed their time wisely, they wouldnt't need these drugs.

funny how people need drugs to "concentrate" in school for 1 hour but they can play a video game while paying attention to every little detail for 3 hours straight

There are a some cases where an individual needs to be on those types of drugs. However, I think they are prescribed to much. Until I attended law school I never heard of Adderall and then it wasn't until I was out with some class mates that I heard they were using it. My opinion the use of those drugs is the sign of a lazy person. The same people who were using the drug were the same people out drinking every night and trying to substitute a pill for hardwork.

I now know what AllisonNYC meant by "the zone hangover."

Erged 5k today and it hurt. So glad that I discovered crossfit endurance a couple of weeks ago!

22 / M / 5'9" / 127lb

I built the PVC parallettes from the CF Journal last night. Can't wait to make a fool of myself on them later tonight.

Quick note: given my normal ubiquity on these threads, it would be reasonable to suppose I fell down and stubbed my brain or something. No, I'm just busy. I accomplish about the same amount every day, but I do it in different places. I'll be back in a week or so.

#109 MB
I think I understand your point. The effects aren't permanent.

But the effects of steroids aren't permanent either.

But if a shot of Test will increase your max bench 30lbs in two weeks. In a month you are back to your original strength.

Sure you don't want your eye surgeon pulling an all nighter before he starts rooting around in your noggin.

But if an ER Doc is pulling a double shift with an all nighter and your coming in crashing; adding a little pep to his step isn't such a bad thing.

Another scenario Augie Busch (yeah that Augie) calls your company from his jet at 4:30 on Friday. He just read an article in the WSJ and wants you to ad a new feature to The Bud Shop. Oh yeah and have it done by Monday morning. The time line is impossible unless no one on the team sleeps more than 4 hours in the next 2 days. But everyone makes $20K for 2 1/2 days of work. Sure the effect is temporary. Heck in that sense even the pay check is temporary. I'd hand out Ritalin like it was pez.

With steroids you have a strained muscle and they say hey kid if you take this you'll be back and playing next week instead of taking 3 weeks off.

It's a difference in degree not kind.

I have to go make up some front squats now. I've been stalling. Dang

hey guys can you give me a great wod with muscle-ups ahardcore muscle-up wod more hardcore than nasty girls....

The whole notion of brain enhancing drugs reminds me of "Flowers For Algernon" by Daniel Keyes.
Great short story, great cautionary tale. Should be required reading.

#123 jakers,

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about intelligence. You seem to be talking about performance. Performance is extremely specific. Intelligence is extremely broad. The difference between the two is vast. These medications do not improve *intelligence*, period.

As far as you're talking about these medications improving short-term mental *performance*, I'd agree with you. They're very similar to steroids, with steroids having a longer-lasting effect. The difference is that the high intelligence researchers that I know (who are also highly intelligent themselves) don't need these performance enhancers. They have excellent control of their brain without them. (In fact, this control is so good that they don't even need things like caffeine to help them stay awake.) It's kind of a funny difference. In strength, the top performers all use steroids. In intellect, the top performers don't need them.

#126 MB
I got lost in the debates there. I went back and read your original statement.

My bad.

I think we are on the same page mostly. The rest is quibbles.

By the way you stole most of my defense of America in post 46. Nice work.

#127 jakers,

Actually, that wasn't me. Different email address. Apparently two of us are using this name now.

Gee, I wonder how much the people involved with this article are being payed as "consultants" or something to certain, speed-producing (yes, those "medicines" are SPEED) drug companies?

The real question here is this: are they pushing drugs for a made-up disease on normal people to further increase their sales? Or, are they suggeting that even normal people use them so that the parents of kids who are diagnosed with the mythical ADD or ADHD by ignorant or corrupt doctors will be more likely to go ahead and give their kid the pills. "Well, why not let Johnny take ritalin if it helps, college kids use it to study and its okay!"

Or maybe both?

Do these people have any idea what all this speed DOES to kids? Do they CARE!?

This type of trash makes me so sick I can't take it sometimes...

Rest day was an hour of indoor spinning at 75-80% max HR w/6 2min climbs @ 85%. Ahhh.. the relaxation..

Worked on HPCs
2XCFWU with 10 DUs and AbMat split sits

HPCs
135 X 5 continuous
155
175 miss X3
165
175
180 (PR)

This raises questions to what the studies will show as safe and(or) effective levels of uses. There will also have to be a set regulation as to criteria these medications can be used for and for whom. Coming from someone that works 24-hour shifts, this could useful when testing my brain at 3 in the morning on a cardiac patient. I do agree that it is wrong to be using someone else' doses of these medications without knowing the side affects of how many you are taking to enhance your cognitive function. We shall see what comes of it all. Great Article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4286435.stm

The active ingredient in marijuana may stall decline from Alzheimer's disease, research suggests.

Very thoughtful article & comments! This was reported in May, 2008, in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11402761

This sent me down a path studying medical ethics and virtues. The history of medicine is rife with trying things without knowing all the ramifications ... for example studying cadavers then examing living patients without knowing about bacterium and cross contamination.

I fear use of cognitive enhancing drugs might have side-effects unforeseen ... of course we could just do gene manipulation ... it works for 'better' cotton and corn, why not warriors and scientists? Or cyborg technology ... why wear the heads-up display on the helmet when I can have it in my eye jacked into the net like a William Gibson's protagonist. I say that 'tongue-in-cheek'.

The article discusses the need for better research. I wholeheartedly agree! If the research can find ways to block, or even reverse, Alzheimer’s disease, which improves the quality of life not only of the person, but also the person's family.

Remember Coach's definition of Fitness and the mind shift (or epiphany) to see it makes more sense for real world tasks ... like subduing a bad guy? Maybe we need a better definition of Health. I think I'm healthier when I exercise consistently and effectively to improve, when I eat consistently and effectively to improve, when I love, forgive and pray consistently and effectively to improve, when I study consistently and effectively to improve. Steroids and methamphetamine cannot help me to consistently and effectively improve over the long term ... they actually have a negative effect on my body and my mind.

Forgive my delayed response as ice-fishing took precedence over keeping up with rest day banter

Comment #82 Jeff Glassman:
I agree completely with your sentiment.

Comment #86 AlaskaManiac:
Have you considered that you may have developed a tolerance and or dependence on the drug while using it, and that your cognitive abilities may have been reduced to pre-use levels?

I sent my comments in the the following response to correspondence@nature.com.

To whom it may concern.

It is misleading to post such an article as this on a website with the url of Natural.com. From the following paragraph, you contend that our lives are already quite unnatural, therefore we should use chemical cognitive enhancement and make our lifestyle even more unnatural. In my opinion, that statement, and indeed the entire article, is contrary to your url.

"As for an appeal to the 'natural', the lives of almost all living humans are deeply unnatural; our homes, our clothes and our food — to say nothing of the medical care we enjoy — bear little relation to our species' 'natural' state. Given the many cognitive-enhancing tools we accept already, from writing to laptop computers, why draw the line here and say, thus far but no further?"

This paragraph also contains one of the many flaws in your argument.

Humans have always used tools, from simple stone spears to laptops. Humans have always worn garments and used shelters to protect us from the elements, from loincloths and caves to three-piece suits and condos. Humans developed verbal and written communication, from the earliest cave drawings and carvings to books, telephones and the internet. The moral and ethical dilemmas in tools, clothing, shelter and communication are based on types of practice (meat, leather, inefficient building practices and use of endangered wood species), not whether the benefits of these necessities and advances outweigh the cost.

The only relevant part of that argument relevant to this topic is the discussion surrounding medicine, which itself is fraught with moral and ethical dilemmas, the use of cognitive enhancing drugs being just one of them.

The rest of this article is so verbose that some may overlook this deductive fallacy.

Three things accompany drug use, whether that drug be approved by the FDA or banned as an illegal controlled substance, whether coffee or methamphetamine. Those three things are:

1. Resistance or tolerance. As the organism becomes is exposed to the chemical, the chemical becomes less effective, and more chemical is needed to elicit a similar response.
2. Addiction. The organism becomes acclimated to the presence of the chemical as the normal state.
3. Withdrawal. The organism craves the chemical once the chemical is removed.

"Although regulations governing medicinal drugs ensure that they are safe and effective for their therapeutic indications, there is no equivalent vetting for unregulated 'off label' uses, including enhancement uses."

Safe and effective chemicals are not what drive legislation and approval. Drug companies, money and lobbyists do.

I commend your disclosure of the financial interests of the authors, but it serves as another chink in the arguments armor.

The issue is regulation. Society has rules to protect people from themselves, and to protect people from others. Being rational beings, we can also create manipulative legislation to benefit or harm certain people. To that end, this article does bring up some valid concerns. However, the glaring fallacies don't allow the critical reader to wholeheartedly take your stance.

In my opinion, any regulation regarding cognitive enhancing drugs would fall into the category of protecting people from themselves. I believe we should seek to understand the balance of nutrition, physical fitness, rest, study and practice to achieve optimum cognitive performance before we pop more pills.

Regards,

Steve

I found this to be enlightening.

Quote:
May 24th,/25th- CROSS-FIT. Cross-fit, which is a training program for navy seals, asked to hire me to be present at the CROSS FIT GAMES in July. However, it do so I had to get certified as a cross-fit trainer. I agreed of course, but when I got down to San Diego to do the certificate training, I nearly died. It was HARD!!!! Which I thought it would be, but I did successfully get certified and had the time of my life. I am not a cross-fit addict and found a gym in Santa Monica which I am going to start training at. Cross-fit games are in July, and hundreds of people go to compete against one another. You can also go to be a spectator, check it out at www.CROSSFIT.com
Look for my picture on there, at the group shot where I got certified.

http://www.taylorwane.com/taylor_tour/d ... chive.html

Not only do they try to rip you off, they send your email out and you get a ton of junk mail.
I am from Tuvalu and know bad English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Supply your source for antibiotics, frontline, syringes and veterinary supplies illegal flea control products, including foreign labeled, unregistered versions."

Thank you very much :o. Nantan.