May 23, 2013
Orange Coast CrossFit, SoCal Regional. Post a caption to comments.
"ACSM 'CrossFit Study' Fraud?" by Russell Berger, CrossFit Journal article [pdf], in response to "CrossFit-based High Intensity Power Training Improves Maximal Aerobic Fitness and Body Composition" by Dr. Michael Smith and Dr. Steven Devor
Full Transcript of Russell Berger's interview with Dr. Steven Devor - [pdf]
Posted by Pukie at May 23, 2013 5:00 PM
I'll be the first to say it. I've never had any issue with any pic posted on the main site. But that one, well, that was a bad call.
Hopefully the athletes in arent embarrassed on a national stage.
Every night I look forward to my 8pm gift of a new workout and possibly an interesting article. I am a Crossfit junkie and a NSCA-CSCS certified trainer. I read a ton of articles and often call to talk to the researchers. I would say they have a real big issue with the data if they are not willing to talk. Good for you Crossfit. Put some pressure on the NSCA.
I hope those two don't feel embarrassed because someone was acting like a pinhead posting that one.
Best program that has ever existed and has changed my life, thank you Coach for all you've done for me and millions of other people.
But whoever threw that up, yikes, that's ridiculous.
Pull it down, like all the poorly-conceived banal comments that the filter catches.
What does ACSM have to do with the NSCA's Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research? If the validity of the study is in question, you can either contact the Corresponding Author of the article or the Editor in Chief of the journal. Write a Letter to the Editor pointing out the study's limitations. Smith et al wrote the article; JSCR conducted the peer review, the editor accepted, and NSCA published the article. If the authors choose not to disclose aspects of the study, then address through the editor by pointing out shortcomings of the research... maybe this has been done. Research of CF (acute responses, chronic adaptations, exercise adherence, enjoyment, etc.) is a good thing.
Who knew BJ burpees over a bar could be so tough
It's photos like is that make me want to double my monthly CrossFit.com dues.
That one is for you, Bingo. :)
In regards to the article, the original study found that CrossFit-like exercise leads to better fitness. So what is the beef with the study--simply the junk about people dropping out due to injury? I say who cares.
Really? Of all the photos from the weekend you selected this one? Adolescent.
Partner WOD's are the best!
The issue with the study is that even with the data that supports Crossfit as a superior exercise regimen (duh), the study was not valid over the 11 dropouts and their "injury". The study claimed that the people dropped the study due to "overuse and/or injury", which was not the case.
Being a CF coach myself, a study being done with my gym saying that the members were injured due to my programming/coaching would be a massive claim to make, especially if it were not true. Imagine if your local favorite CF coach/affiliate was publicized as injuring members when in fact they did not do that whatsoever. I would be irate.
I've added CrossFit to my arsenal of workouts for 7 years. CrossFit is an excellent tool to complete fitness. But I've noticed that if you disagree with any aspect they come after you hard, very thin skinned.
Keep pushing the boundries CrossFit!
What does the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) have to do with a National Strength & Conditioning Association (NSCA) Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research article? Am I missing something? Maybe some editorial work needed here.
With respect to the JSCR article: if the validity of the research is in question, then it would certainly be appropriate to contact the Corresponding Author. If full disclosure is not made, then a Letter to the Editor-in-Chief of JSCR would certainly be appropriate. Although JSCR does not have the highest impact factor in the exercise and sports science field, it does have a thorough peer review process and is a high quality journal for practitioners; however, that does not mean mistakes were not made in one or more areas of the research.
Regardless, the CF Community needs to be a little less sensitive... afterall, CF-related research is going to continue along with the growth of the community... that's a good thing.
CFers are probably more active in the sack than the general population. I mean that for both the monogamous and non-monogamous among us.
Quoting scotte, #19: "...most of these principles have been around for years anyway." I agree.
These were around back in the late 80s, early 90s when I was working at gyms and teaching group classes. Back then there was no branding or marketing for it, like there is today.
To add to my post above, don't get me wrong though, I am addicted to CrossFit like I've never been before. :)
"Post a caption to comments."
Pukie planted a bomb for the comments section!!!LOL(laugh out loud)
The paper is authored by ACSM members, including Dr. Devor, who is a fellow of the ACSM. The NSCA simply published it. As for your letter to the JSCR, great idea. I actually fully agree with you that if the 16% "injury" rate is shown to be fabricated then we should reject the study as a whole, ignoring whatever beneficial claims it makes about CrossFit as well. That's not difficult to do considering anyone who has ever stepped foot in a CrossFit Affiliate can tell you that the program improves body-fat and cardiorespiratory endurance.
Where I disagree with you is the suggestion that we should just be "less sensitive" and let this slide. I undertook this project when I found out that this Affiliate owner was being accused of hurting 9 people, and the non-CrossFit gyms in his area were circulating the study as negative marketing against his business. Looking the other way when you see potentially unethical behavior is as bad as doing it in my book.
I could not believe more strongly in the CF system when executed properly. It has changed my life, but man do you guys need to grow up and professionalize your business. It kills me the way you continue to make fools of yourself with thoughtless, unnecessary rants like this. Please learn to pick your battles and act like you are as relevant as you really are to the fitness community.
The real genius of the affiliate model is it saves you from yourselves. There are some real professionals out there.
20 minute AMRAP.. better take ALL 20 minutes!
Not to worry CF community, even if our type of training was more injury prone (not saying that it is), coach Glassman has already publicly stated that this train can hurt you. This helps weed out skecptics. And if you're that skeptical in the beginning, how willing are you going to be to gut-it-out during a killer WOD. Let doctors and medical researchers keep putting people on medication to help them deal with modern diseases. My dad has had 2 mild heart attacks and is showing signs of diabetes. Not once has a dr prescribed diet an exercise. Just pills. Now, my dad takes full responsibility of his condition, as he should, but my point is only that much of the medical community relies heavily on science. To me, CF is logic; work hard- eat right-see results.
Photos like this are annoying.
Him: "Go hold your handstand somewhere else!"
Her: "Dude, that was just the double unders!"
Re: Comment #30 by Neile,
There are more women working the room than men.
She's probably gonna be disappointed she didn't wait until he recovered.
HQ, it doesn't take a moron to know what you're trying to accomplish in re: the photo. While humorous to some, crossfit HQ has reinforced the objectification of women, a continued issue in our society; one that certainly doesn't make anyone better. I'd love to hear what the female model, with what seems like pure intentions, has to say about being ridiculed by a bunch of a**-hat foolish clowns.
Out of all the amazing pictures from regionals we see this?
I dont know what comments are better the funny ones or people getting upset about a funny pic... AWESOME!
My three kids don't cry this much put together.
So the ACSM study validates everything CrossFit claims (significantly improved athletic performance) but mentions that there's a chance for injury/overuse problems, and HQ dedicates doctorate-level responses to this and attempts to show that the whole study was a fraud?
For god's sake, Annie isn't competing in the Games this year due to injury. To claim that there's no chance of injury with CrossFit is ludicrous. Come on HQ, you're better than this.
HQ, if you're willing to push the boundaries of decency with that pic you posted today, allow some discussion about fitness that pushes the boundaries of what you're comfortable with.
Annie isn't competing because of injury.
We all saw Kristen Clever get injured during the regionals.
These are highly trained and experienced CrossFitters that we're seeing injured. Yet, HQ finds it completely absurd that regular everyday individuals who CrossFit have a high risk of injury? Get real... Russell Berger, who has no degree or real academic background in exercise science, calls research that this DOCTOR at OHIO STATE did "junk science" and he wonders why no one wants to comment any further? This study proves that CF makes you fitter, while reinforcing what everyone who does it already knows: you can get injured. This study would help us defend our program against meat head body builders who bash our training and say it doesnt work. Now we can show them scientific data that proves it works, and CF wants to ruin this and say the whole thing is a fraud? This is ridiculous...
Is this an outtake from the SoCal Nether Regionals?
Jack (20)was right on with his comment
I didn't realize that because you have a degree that you are smarter than everyone who doesn't have the same one. I work with plenty of people who have doctrines and they are some of dumbest ones in the group. I have a masters, some of te kids coming out w a bachelors fresh out of college have better sense than the guys w the higher degrees.
If you are judging someone's knowledge based on what piece of paper they earned you deserve to be in the dumb ass group also.
The other day......I was walking down the sidewalk......tripped on a crack......and got injured. I should stop.....walking.
Yes, Annie and Kristen are injured this year... nobody is denying you can hurt yourself doing CrossFit, injuries are possible in any physical activity. The issue is that the researchers were biased in their hypothesis; with no evidence to support it, they fabricated reasons for the no-shows. Fabricating data is obviously wrong, and presenting false conclusions to support your bias is definitely fraud. This discredits the entire ACSM study, because neither the researchers nor their data can be trusted.
Q: Why did Dr. Smith refuse an interview, and why did Dr. Devor decide to issue a formal statement after the first interview?
A: As scientists, they just outed themselves as untrustworthy, possibly ruining any chance at other researchers or employers taking them seriously in the future.
Stomp out bad science in America!
Did any of you read the article? Holy cow...
We all know the benefits of CrossFit, otherwise we wouldn't be doing it. Yes, injury is a risk we all take by pushing ourselves hard and making ourselves better. Yes people get injured doing CrossFit, yet they also get injured walking down the street and stepping in a hole.
The problem with this study is that the "Doctors" published that 16% of the test participants didn't return to take the final test because of "overuse or injury". To lose 16% of the folks in 10 weeks due to "overuse or injury" is an awful high number, red flags should have gone up all over the place. If that were truly the case then CrossFit should close their doors because they would be doing more harm than good. This is why the folks at HQ started asking questions.
Just like in D.C., you can never take things at face value and asking questions with regards to something that affects your livelihood should be the norm. Here is where the problem with the study results begin...
Yes, this is a favorable outcome for CrossFit. The folks that came back to re-test showed results. This is not a surprise. However, you have to throw the whole study away because the FALSE information about the folks that didn't show up to re-test invalidates the entire study. Because the authors were caught in that lie ("overuse and injury"), we no longer can believe anything that is written.
This has nothing to do with being 'Thin skinned', it has to do with accuracy of what is supposed to be a Scientific Study that has been professionally published. It is incorrect and therefore should be retracted and thrown away.
Also, just because "Russell Berger, who has no degree or real academic background in exercise science"(quoted from #17 above), doesn't mean he doesn't know more or isn't allowed to challenge the "DOCTORS". Clearly in this case he was right and they were wrong. Just because the have a piece of paper that says they went to school doesn't make always make them better. Especially in this case.
I hope for CrossFit's sake they at least get a retraction printed.
John Alder, you got it right on the money, my friend.
"Glad I picked her for the team instead of Fitness Lonnie..."
Saying I'm disappointed with the judgement on the promotion of the photo is an understatement. My kids love CrossFit and I don't need to be explaining stuff like this to them. CrossFit promotes being "better" in all areas of life, and that being fit has reverberating effects into all areas of our lives. Let's strive for higher standards here too.
"...can't believe Mikko says you should never lay down on your back after a workout..."
I started CF about 3 years ago and have been eating Paleo for about 3 months. I started with pre-existing conditions of a 3xlevel Cervical Spine Fusion and 3xknee operations. 3 years ago my pull-up PR was 5..today 30, I've lost 25lbs, my cholesterol, and blood pressure levels are great. I've had minor shoulder injuries, tendenitus, and arthritic pain, but adjust my workouts and schedule accordingly....a small price to pay for massive improvement in my overall health. I've had people in the fitness industry tell me I shouldn't do Crossfit at age 48, because it causes too many injuries and I'm sure they spread this same message to their clients...maybe this why HQ is sensitive to this type of "Study".
The problem is that this article was used against the box owner Mitch as saying he injured 9 of his clients when he didn't. How would you feel if someone said you injured any of your clients and you didn't?
interesting article. i would not use the term "fraudulent", but definitely flawed. and reading the CHAMP paper interesting too--giving credit to "extreme cotioning programs" for filling a niche, then saying that they really have no place in warfighter training, falling back on "establishment" guidelines and certifications, all while deconstructing ECPs and essentially asserting that the skills involved are necessary. i would posit that the biggest problem some of these folks have with crossfit is simply that it is not under their organizational umbrella....i know many CSCS and CPT trainers who aren't worth the air they breath, let alone the rates they charge
Regardless of the level of degree of the person questioning the science, if the science is questionable, we need to hold the scientists accountable. What good are the results of a published study whose entire method and ethics are in question? These are the men and women who help guide us in our search for truth.
As an affiliate owner, I am also super proud to know that the company that I pay affiliate dues to is willing to call people on the carpet whose conjecture has a direct and adverse effect on my livelihood. And that isn't to say that people don't get hurt doing CrossFit, people can get hurt doing just about anything; but to publish a study that educated consumers are going to use to select both a fitness program and a place to do it with false reporting is negligent... Bottom line is that we need to expect more from our leaders and they need to know that we are watching.
How could you defend an article that falsely claims something, with simply using the words "Doctor" and "Ohio State"? It's the same as me saying, hey that John Alder guy, man he's a great father and his babysitting service is fantastic, but 15% of the kids leave with bruises and injuries. Oh but I'm not sure if they showed up like that or received the injuries there. But hey, I'm a Dr. and I graduated from OSU. HQ is not being over defensive in this case.
@ckatech that's exactly what I took out of the articles. His business is being hurt by these false claims.
@triumph awsome quote. Even mikko might make an exception to his rule
These WODs are starting to get freaky
Ok, it would have been better to ask the nine people what exactly happened and when and why. So why dont Mitch asks them?
And yes, even pros get hurt all the time: In Skiing, Rowing, Biking, Football, Soccer, and CF.... Part of the game. Ask Kelly Starret. Whats the big deal? Relax people...
ohhhh so that's what a BJ burpee is!
Caption: "Inappropriate for this venue."
You have a great product. Don't submit to tasteless innuendo and ill-suited double entendre.
My teenage children rely on this website and this sport as a distraction from all the pressures in their world to lead them astray.
Embrace the suck and get back to what we do! Push, Press, Run, Jump, Puke (Repeat).
@ avid x'fitter-
loved how you ended----"embrace the suck" pun intended?
comments in the filter...
Inappropriate photo Crossfit!!!! As a OCCF member I'm ashamed you would post this!
Fran time? Yeah, whatever! What's your Vo2max and bodyfat%, dude?
Finally a WOD I'll enjoy from beginning to end!!!
Coach Berger- I've been a police officer for 15yrs. I deal with obsessive liars daily. Your phone interview with this so-called "Doctor" was remarkable. What a fraud. I love an interviewer that can matter-of-factly get in a guys face and turn him upside-down-backwards, and he never sees it coming! You are the man! Write a book on interview techniques, and I'll take 2.
Avid X'fitter you are dead on here.
I have only been crossfitting for about a year now. This is what you would expect from a commerical gym trying to sell their product to the masses and just want to line their pockets.
I expect better from CrossFit!
As I scientist, I agree with those saying the authors of this study need to be held accountable. It doesn't matter what the credentials are or what damage may or may not be inflicted by the study. Bad science is bad science. Poorly done studies like this that make claims without the evidence to back them up are what lead to the general public having a poor understanding of scientific concepts in general. Saying that this study sheds a positive light on CrossFit, therefore any false claims that it makes ought to be ignored, is saying that science can be done without empirical evidence.
CrossFit is not thin-skinned. CrossFit has created a definition of fitness that is based upon verifiable data and results, and they hold others to those same scientific standards.
Tasteless. Have some class.
This photo is clean. If you are offended by this photo then you are the one with a dirty mind. I am positive that children see much worse throughout the day, whether you realise it or not. If you dont allow them too, it only means they are going to do it without your supervision now...but they will still do it.
Subbed (from Blue Flame CF):
800 m. run
40 Deadlifts @ 135
20 Power Clean @ 135
10 Front Squats @ 135
Power Snatch 4 x 3 @ 95
4 x 3 @ 115
3 x 2 @ 125
3 x 1 @ 135
Storm in a teacup.
I am consistently amazed by the degree to which CrossFit will go out of its way to stain the reputation of anyone (researchers/academics are a favourite target) who might even hint that CF could cause an injury. In all this ridiculous hoo-ha everyone seems to have glossed over the amazingly positive results of the study.
It's basically disguised schoolyard bullying tactics.
To those who are all worried about their "kids" seeing this photo:
If your children know enough to see the innuendo in the picture, then it's too late for you to protect them from it anyway... Lighten up. 8 year olds won't see it. 15 year old Crossfitters are already well aware of sex and what's goin' on. Like we expect a bunch of fit, strong, good looking people NOT to be in touch with their sexuality!? Please, I was a scrawny little nothing at 14 or 15 and there was nothing my parents were gonna be able to keep me from! lol
1. Thank god this workout is over so I can blow you
2. Fitness is so arousing. Let's bang.
3. -Do you think anyone can see us?
-What about that guy with the camera?
-That little guy? I wouldn't worry about that little guy.
4. She wants the D.
The photo is not tasteless. Though, perhaps one could argue that some of the comments are.
Where your mind goes is not HQs responsibility. However, a big part of the fitness industry is about getting in shape for form and fashion rather than function.
This is inherently sexual. And that is a part of their product. So what if they use it, so what if dudes want Crossfit babes to do BJ burpees and embrace the suck?
It is a part of life.
People get hurt in all aspects of life. The evidence CF works are in the boxes and seen on the people who have bettered their health. Seeing it first hand is a pretty good amount of evidence to me.I personally am trying to get hired by the OHP and have dropped my mile and a half run time by over a min. in less than a year and have ran further than I ever have bc of my joining a CF gym.
Oh yeah, the picture is inappropriate..... but it's funny.
Would you classify this statement from study coordinator Chelsea Rankin as "schoolyard bullying" too?
“I did all the data collection for the study, and I know every person who didn’t re-test. It was easy to figure out they weren’t injured. This data is inaccurate. Those individuals were not injured, and that wasn’t the reason they didn't test out. To me this questions the validity of the research"
"Omar" make-up at 85lbs:
I love CFHQ just hanging the pic!
Haven't read the article yet.
But I will say this: I don't think risk of injury gets enough discussion on crossfit.com generally. As a backyard crossfitter who's still new, my main question on a daily basis is, can I do this WOD, or am I at risk of hurting myself. And at what point do I need to swallow the considerable cost, go find an affiliate and get some coaching?
And I find very little on the site that helps me assess the risks. But I think an honest discussion of the risk of injury would, on the whole, tilt the scale in favor of affiliates rather than against.
wow. a transcript of actual bullying and classic ambush technique. thanks for that, mr. berger.
it's not so much that i disagree with mr. berger's assertion the study was flawed, it's how we, as crossfit, go about disagreeing. this is all very lance armstrong'ish and i don't think it has any place in society.
if you disagree, do so respectfully.
Everything too long did not read... Crossfit is great at what it's supposed to do (general preparedness). If it wasn't, it wouldn't be getting more popular by the second and people that trained differently would come into the games and beat everyone. Case closed
So lemme get this straight:
Someone did a study that proved what those of us who utilize CF-type workouts have known from the get-go: this stuff works. But the study has some loose ends b/c of the mention (or assumption) that some participants were injured during the study. So CF's response is to lambast the researchers over the "injury" portion of the study and consequently question the study's merit? How about: "Hey, we don't agree with the injury portion and would like you to retract that, but otherwise nice job!"
I can't see anyone reading the study and then thinking "oh shit, we shouldn't utilize HIPT/HIIT due to injury concerns". I'm guessing most would read it and say "damn, look at those end-result numbers! We need to get on board with this!"
The picture in and of itself isn't inappropriate, it's the request for captions along with some (most) of the responses.
Chelsea Rankin says "it's easy to figure out they weren't injured." Then why didn't she explain how she figured that out? The 4 people Russell claims he contacted said they weren't contacted by anybody from the study, in my mind, that includes Chelsea. If she didn't contact them, how'd she know they weren't injured? This is a case of he say she say and HQ is choosing to listen to the people who support their viewpoint. Dr Devor said they were contacted and questioned, Chelsea says they weren't - why am I inclined to believe Chelsea over Devor? Either way, as someone above me said: if you disagree then do it respectfully. The end of that interview was hard to read because Russel was extremely rude and aggressive despite the fact that Devor said he did not know the answer to his question because it was not his responsibility and he would investigate the answer for him..
As a science mind and degreed professional, there are a few things wrong here.
Scientific method dictates we ask a question, formulate a theory, and then test against that theory. We test every possible angle so when we do present and defend our theory, the defense is ironclad. This was clearly violated since the data was manipulated to support the theory.
It is also appalling that a scientist will not stand and answer for his work.
"Let's take 'taunting' to a whole new level."
"NEW WORLD RECORD!!!"
Did Tabata push-ups
Short but hard.
Honestly, if anyone is offended you probably don't have a very good sense of humor. You're probably also personally offended when girls dress slutty. Have you been to a CF comp lately? Chicks basically wear nothing and it's hot. So if you're worried about your teen visiting this site and picking up on some not so subtle innuendos, don't be. Rest assured that they are googling porn like any well adjusted youth. CrossFit is sexy. So is humor.
Just read the paper and interview.
The study asks the question, "Does CrossFit improve fitness, as measured by body fat %, VO2max, etc., across populations?" Answer: yes.
If Berger and others want to ask "Does Crossfit cause injuries?", you need a different study. To complain that the paper didn't adequately answer the question it wasn't asking misses the point.
Every published paper points to areas for further research, including suppositions about what may be happening. The suggestion about injuries was nothing more than that.
Poorly done research is just that, and conclusions could/should not be reached from this kind of research. Quickly done research designed perhaps as "proof of concept" can be done in order to determine if a more extensive study might be warranted, and slightly less strict criteria and follow-up might be justifiable in such a study. But a study that purports to prove or disprove efficacy, or to determine the safety profile of a subject necessarily carries a much higher burden when it comes to structure, follow-up, and statistical analysis.
This is just the rule of basic scientific inquiry.
A study that has such a large % drop-out of subjects will be able to make only weak conclusions. The positive findings (CF does what it says it does) is therefore weakened; this will likely be pointed out by those who are not fans of CF. Inferring or suggesting that the drop-out is due to injury will likely provide fodder for those same critics of CF, making it mandatory that either the authors explain the dropout accurately, or that CF point out the flaws in the study, or both.
To those who accuse CF, Dr. G. and Russell of "bullying" in the publication of responses that explicitly point out the inaccuracies and study flaws should note that the responses came only after multiple efforts to reach out to the authors, multiple discussions with the authors, and communication with other individuals involved in the study who were not named authors. Failing to get a full and complete response and faced with what amounts to the publication of information that is potentially harmful to a CF Affiliate and CF itself, CF responded when it became clear that no further bilateral communication would ensue. I find it hard to characterize this as "bullying".
When we discuss injury rates in CrossFit it is necessary to define the population we are examining. For example, David Robinson the famous NBA star wondered aloud why his son would choose a sport (football) in which there is essentially a 100% injury rate in professional who play the game. This figure (100%) does not apply to youth or high school football players, and football itself should not be said to have a 100% injury rate. Likewise, professional CrossFit athletes like Annie and Kris should have their injury rates evaluated in relation to other professional CrossFitters, not with that of the membership of a typical CrossFit Affiliate.
The Cleveland Marathon was this past weekend. As part of the coverage there was an article published in town that noted a 65% annual injury rate among recreational runners. 65% of runners suffer a running-related injury each year. Think about that. If we do a little math and make a couple of assumptions this becomes even more interesting. Wouldn't you love to know rate of injury, # or injuries per X number of runs?
How dangerous is CrossFit? How likely are you to suffer a true CrossFit-related or CrossFit-caused injury? Several of us are investigating this using an injury/WOD performed model, but I guess we could use the data to determine a % rate as well. Right now the % of CrossFitters injured doing CrossFit is <1% in the Affiliates studied in a "proof of concept" pilot study which is still being data mined. Across multiple Affiliates with trainers of varying degrees of experience and varying tenure as CrossFitters this is substantially and dramatically less than the implied 16% injury rate in the OSU study. Anecdotal evidence going all the way back to the days of CF Santa Cruz is similar.
How could CF not respond?
The study alleges that 16 per cent of the subjects dropped out "citing overuse or injury."
The study coordinator Chelsea Rankin, however, reported that the researchers had no way to contact the no-shows. Furthermore, Dr. Steven Devor himself was unable to explain how they found out the reason that the 9 subjects didn't attend the follow-up testing.
It may not be the main point of the study, but it is significant that Dr. Devor and the other researchers made the "overuse or injury" claim without being able to talk to the people who didn't show up.
CrossFit should not have to tolerate fabricated injury data simply because a study also says favorable things about CrossFit.
Response in the filter...
6 mile run at lunch.
First day since starting back to CF at end of March that my body didn't feel any DOMS.
As a casual observer of the website, and in no way a fanboy of Crossfit, I'd like to share my opinion on the "bullying" accusations:
I find it hard to find fault in the way Russell handled himself during the interview. Dr. Devor was understandably defensive when being accused of putting his name on a faulty scientific article. The idea that Russell should have backed off after Dr. Devor deferred to Dr. Smith doesn't hold up, because while deferring, he was also defending the excerpt with faulty reasoning. Russell was then refuting the faulty reasoning, in what I consider a pretty respectful manner. Had Dr. Devor merely stated that Russell would need to confer with Dr. Smith, without always attaching his opinion on the issue, then I would certainly agree that it would be disrespectful to push the issue. I can agree with the criticism concerning the "junk science" quote, because I felt that was s bit excessive, otherwise I thought both participants handled themselves well.
Overall, I think it's great that Corporate is assisting a member of the community, who rightly feels that his business is in danger of getting a bad reputation based on this publication. That's a pretty rough implication, and it is well within the box owner's rights to fight for evidence that substantiaties the negative implication.
It's ridiculous to argue that the injury excerpt should be disregarded because it wasn't the major point of the article, and I think Roger would feel the same way if he was the owner or even a member of the box.
Broad time and modal domains?
The "overuse" was referring to the participants' credit cards. It is sad that only 16% were smart enough to determine that they could do the same thing at home for free.
To state that 16% were injured is a ballsy statement and to not support this ballsy claim is idiotic! This percentage is a high number to report and attribute this to number to CrossFit training...I mean did they not know who they were dealing with? I understand that we get hurt from time to time, but 16% is ridiculously high.
I'm not a scientific genius but I do know when someone is covering up a lie. These spineless nerds got caught and do not have the balls to state that they botched this study from the start...MAN UP! Nerds.
OUTSTANDING JOB CrossFit! Keep on protecting our community from knuckleheads like these.
I was one of the people that did this study. I will only identify myself as my number FC02. I read both articles and it's true, Dr. Smiths article is a fraud. As one of the individuals tested I did the pre and post test and worked out at the affiliate. I never once was in the supervision of a fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and an ACSM
certified registered clinical exercise physiologist. When I did the tests, I walked in, was weighed, got in a bod pod, did a VO2 max test, got my lipids tested and left. The only real talking was regular CrossFit banter from the other affiliate members being tested. Those who were taking the data were students of OSU and not "Doctors" or "Professors". The Girl who was running the BOD POD couldn't even figure out how to make the computer print. 10 weeks later I was tested again with different students than before taking the data. They were disinterested in what CrossFit was and what the results were. They were just students at school. After reading Dr. Smiths article I am surprised they got 17 pages out of what data they received. I know that half of the 53 people didn't even make it past week 5 die to lack of interest in the test or point system that was set up by the Affiliate. They just wanted to workout and have fun instead of keeping track of everything. To publish such bullshit and state any of it as "Science" really explains why America is fat and Lazy and kids are on anti-depressants.
Is there a .pdf of Jeff glassman's response to the article? Would very much like to have access to that article as well.
Definitely an interesting photo lol. People shouldn't get so worked up about it, all in good fun, right??
1. Study proves that CrossFit is good for your health.
2. CFHQ attempt to invalidate the study by claiming poor methodology by the researchers.
The research wasn't intended to be an advertisement for CrossFit, but it pretty much could have been. We get it Mr.Berger, you love CrossFit. Instead of being freaked out that it dared to mention that there was a risk of injury with repetitive, high level, high intensity exercise which most people understand, maybe you could have asked how they classified injury. The subjects were pulled from "all" levels of fitness and body comp according to the reading. Putting "all" of these people through the same exercises could have caused something as basic as DOMS. That alone could have been enough "injury" for some to quit and choose to go back to Nautilus. The key seems to be on page 8 where they mentioned "Further work....to best realize improvements to health without increasing risk above background levels..." Who wouldn't agree with that? Be smart with progression. Other than that it is constant praise of CrossFit for doing what it says it does.
The intelligent and responsible person will seek out solutions to problems and not just blindly follow any program. I use Crossfit as a tool but I am more focused on bringing up weaknesses with extra (and often boring) lifting, learning form/technique, and being a "student of the game". It is my opinion, that nothing is perfect or a perfect fit, for all people because we are all so physically different.
Find the best sources you can, learn from proven experts, (people who have years of experience and are actively improving themselves), learn enough to filter out the BS, and most importantly, LISTEN TO YOUR BODY as you program your training.
If you question whether a photo should be up on a work computer, it may not be a good photo for the main site.
This photo looks like it was taken at the Crossfit affiliate gym, Sexual Crossfit Miami
I completely concur #68, all in good fun. Television and grocery store checkout line magazines are far more inappropriate. Humans just so happen to be sexual beings. Relax people.
"I dove head-first into the WOD today"
I think Roger #61 is right. The study aimed to measure improvement in VO2 max, and it had a really small sample size. They probably shouldn't have even reported the injury data because a) they didn't account for it in methods and b) it wasn't what the study was about. I do think the crossfit community should be interested in larger studies that evaluate the risk for injury in CF compared to other activities. It's not impossible that people are injured at relatively high rates doing CF, but the gains are real too, so it's about weighing values in deciding to do it.
I totally agree with Jason R. There's nothing dirty about the photo, just what your mind makes of it. Besides, there are so many other things we should be protecting our kids from that this absolutely pales by comparison.
Saying that there is so much worse out there that our kids see every day is such a cop out and probably comes from someone who doesn't have kids. My kids are mine to protect and guide. They are too young to care about any particular website (6, 4 and 2) or look at the computer much, but regardless, it is frustrating because they are CrossFit kids. It reminds me of how I give people flak for offering my kids candy. They are offered candy by the mailman, by teachers, at sports events, at church, at the bank, free cookies at the grocery store, the list goes on. Constantly and endlessly. And I teach them the healthy choice, but it is still annoying that it is constantly shoved in their faces by people who don't even consult the parent. Just because someone offers a small piece of candy doesn't make it right because it is negligible. Just as this is all part of a grander picture that makes sexual licentiousness acceptable, and in a community that tries to impact kids. I will teach my kids the way they should go, and ultimately it is up to them to make the right choice, but as a parent it is frustrating nonetheless.
It's funny and provocative because it looks like she is giving him a mouth hug! I get it, crossfit. Now go back to posting pictures of DEVGRU wannabes. Lolz.
That's a stupid pic, but there's no way kids would have any idea about the innuendo. Zero chance.
There is a question that the Crossfit community needs to answer. How much fitness do you need to maximize health and when does an increase in fitness decrease one's health? More fitness doesn't always equal more health.
Kelly O I am a parent and I totally agree with you that we must protect and guide our children. But no one can ever stop them seeing every single bit of sexual innuendo. What we can do is teach our kids a sense of inquiry and to develop and defend their own senses of right and wrong. There's a lot to be said for laughing off the small things and saving your energy for the big battles.
@ Comment #79 - Posted by: Jon Gray
The CrossFit "standard" is to do all the mainsite WODS as Rx'd in a competitive time frame.
Obviously everybody has their own limitations but that's a guideline.
Look up the CrossFit definition of fitness, you will find you will never have enough fitness. I would say the games competitors program how they train very well but that being said, unless we are in league with them. We have some serious fitness work to do.
Waaaah. Last time I checked, CF has been giving you all daily workouts FOR FREE. Its kinda like when facebook made updates to THEIR website that you used FOR FREE but somehow felt you had the right to complain about it because you felt inconvieninced. grow up. If the adult world is too adult for you, there's always Planet Fitness and Insanity.
Innapropriate? Sex is natural, its one of the MOST natural things in the world. It is innapropriate that we live in a world that makes people feel dirty for being sexual in any way. It is innapropriate to label something as lacking in moral restraint when we are unfamiliar with the persons involved and their moral choices. It is innapropriate for people to believe that because they are uncomfortable with their own sexuality they have a right to dictate to others about what is and isnt appropriate. How many people come on these pages and crossfit forums all over the web expounding the virtues of this exercise for their love life? So if we are busting our guts to have our bodies at the absolute peak why shouldnt this page be allowed to show it? Inappropriate is just a scared persons way of saying they arent happy with something that doesnt fit their narrow and safe world view.
I've been critical of the W/F/S appropriateness of main site pics before, especially since HQ doesn't hold itself to the same standards as it does forum members.
However, this one doesn't seem that bad. Sure, you can interpret it in a dozen different ways, but frankly, it looks more like she tripped over him than it does anything sexual.
Kerry D @#83, read your post again out loud and tell me what you think. Do you really think anyone who thinks this picture is inapproprate for a web page that promotes fitness for the entire family is a scared person with a narrow world view. You sound very self righteous and intolerant of others views.
I am not a prude, but sine the images are actually in a way branding and advertising, I don't quite get why CF posts images that are overly graphic and a bit on the raunchy side. It's not good for their health and well being image and hurts them by getting them blocked at schools, etc. This doesn't seem intelligent, unless they are desiring to change the norm in body awareness, etc. I have not heard of that agenda, only the health, fitness agendas... and I'm all on board for those.
This image seems almost pornographic to a lay person.... I of course understand that this is an image of exhaustion after completing a grueling workout and comraderie between fellow competitors and team mates, but since most people are NOT well versed in CF why not put up generally inpiring and typical images, not these types of images on the main site. If you want a sub category of games/ competiton images fine then people are kind of searching them out.
I just think these little things are hurting the bigger picture and CF's ability to truely cross over into may sectors, including public education for Phys. Ed. It only takes a few prudish parents perusing the main site, seeing these types of photos and they'll yell all day and they WILL be heard and CF will get blocked... WHY? Just think about it CF headquarters people.
"Finally, a practical application for handstand pushups!"
Tasteless pic. Lack of class.
Now that's what I call ACTIVE RECOVERY
Should ask the athletes in the picture what they think about being featured on the main page in such an obvious send up. Don't pretend this photo was posted for anything other than mouseclicks. It's short sighted BS, guys, and it's not the product you're selling. Your brand goes way way beyond the niche that you're pandering to here.
Next up - fart jokes.
The ACSM study says: Crossfit works, but some people may get injured. And the community gets upset over that? The community has known for a long time that injuries happen during rigorous training. Coach himself publicly touted the dangers as part of the firebreathers' creed.
So instead of saying this paper supports the effectiveness of Crossfit, they tear it apart based on one section that no one (should) disagrees with.
TBH I doubt ANY young kid knows what that pictue is insinuating. Unless you've included BJs in your birds and the bees talk. Then, I would be concerned.
"Five rounds for time:..."
If I recommended Crossfit to a friend and they checked the website the day that this photo was featured I would be embarrassed. The photo in itself isn't bad but the prompt to 'caption this' is in bad taste. I hope this doesn't become a trend.
Memorial week and u post this pic? Who's running the show at HQ? On behalf of our military everywhere...BOO RAH!
My wife said they abbreviated box jumps on the white board !
Thats the problem with partner WODs.
When I'm done, we're done.
If you're trying to make a legitimate claim against a peer-reviewed paper, then you may want to consider posting that claim with a serious picture and saving the laugh for the next day. Posting the two together would be like presenting a testimony in court while wearing sandals and a tank. You're undermining your own credibility.
Oh where oh where has my little post gone?
Picture was tasteless and no class. Disappointment.
I usually just get a drink after a WOD. Some guys have the best of everything!
I am shocked and disappointed to see Crossfit promote this picture.
Maybe it's just ppls filthy minds , I'd imagine they put it on here as "united effort" male - female working together .
I'm sure they weren't thinking anything of the sort after completing the wod !
I would love to read Bingo's thoughts on this article and interview...
I must admit the picture could have been completely innocent, but I saw it differently because of my dirty mind. Looks like there are many like me.
Honestly, why are some of you so serious? The picture is funny! Take it in the spirit in which it's posting was intended.
I have never seen a more fitting example of "functional fitness".
Is that lint in your belly button?
the photo was fun.
there was a time, way back when I started CrossFit, when the athletes weren't so "delicate" about enjoying pictures and jests. It was fun.
i'm so sorry to see the fun posts now outnumbered by silly uptight prudes pushing their outrage agenda. That kind of CrossFitter isn't fun at all. What a bore.
CrossFit, thanks for the silly adult fun photo. It brings back some of the gritty fun from the days before the golden hordes of outraged morality swarmed over the mountains and settled into CrossFit, infesting the comments section with their protestations of offense.
By far, my favorite CrossFit photo is the hilarious dude squatting in a banana sling bikini and holding a kettlebell. Pants-wettingly funny. My second favorite photo just might be that uber fine man from Sunday's rest day. To him I say: Kenneth Leverich, thou shalt never wear a shirt again.
Fun. Let's have more of it.
Re: alleged injuries
Crossfitting hard since 2006 & still rolling. Thank you, Coach for giving us the tools to achieve such an amazing life.
I am having a hard time believing people inclined to crossfit are this prude. Lighten up. Love the pic.
Want to promote the idea that CrossFit is for everyone? Want to engender respect for the sport? Then don't post pictures that are the visual equivalent of a dirty joke with a double-meaning.
Any human being with a basic sense of decency would find this image demeaning and offensive.
It's sad how upset everyone is getting over this photo. Didn't know Crossfit was full of such sissies. It's humorous and you can't really get offended unless you want to be.
V6AGO5 Appreciate you sharing, great post.Thanks Again. Keep writing.