Thanks for the refresh. This is good to remember that when we read the level 1 manual they reference to the frontal plane as the line that dissects the athlete in front and back. The line that we would want the external load to be traveling the closest too. I the level 1 manual the frontal plane is static and doesn't follow the athlete. It stays perpendicular to the ground at all times.

I like all the debate that this article brought. I think that regardless of who is right it seams clear that the somatic mutation theory alone is not enough to explain cancers. I like the fresh approach that suggest cancer is a mitochondrial metabolic disease. I hope we will have have some more evidence soon and save lives. While we wait I will stick to reducing carbs and crossfit on a regular basis. That seems to be once again a safe lifeboat to be on.

With the glutamine piece- does this mean supplemental glutamine is contra-indicated if battling cancer? Knowing that glutamine is the primary fuel cell for intestinal lining (and is an important part of healing leaky gut in many protocols), I'm a little confused as to its place in a cancer prevention/treatment plan. Any clarity here would be helpful. Thanks

that was hard 29:40 Rx'd pull ups were 25 sets of two push ups were 25 sets of four squats were 15 sets of ten

I was diagnosed B-cell lymphomas which are types of lymphoma affecting B cells. Lymphomas are blood cancers" in the lymph nodes. They develop more frequently in older adults and in immunocompromised individuals. I remember being on my knees praying, “God, I will fight as hard as I can if you just let me get through this chemo stuff.” When I went in, Dr. Noy said, “I have something that’s going to help. I’m going to give you Procrit after you get your chemo.” Once I got the Procrit, I never felt again like I had after that first chemo treatment. I got tired and I didn’t feel 100 percent, but I was really okay. My cancer became very real to me once I lost my hair. But by then the mystery, the uncertainty, was sort of gone. Not gone, but it just wasn’t at the forefront. There were things that I started looking forward to doing, like going out and not just staying in the house. By then, the weather had started getting really nice, and I decided I needed to get out. I would go for a long walk or take the subway into the city and look in the store windows. It’s funny, people I didn’t know would chat with me on the bus, on the train. We would talk about anything. That made me feel a lot better. It come a day when i was told by a lady to try and do some research on the internet for help maybe there will be a cure to my Cancer. I google for treatment for cancer and I saw some testimony about the herbal specialist called Dr. SANI and the great work of his Herbal Medicines. With the hope I have in God I believe this to be the end of my problem for I have prayed for a solution from God. I contact Dr. SANI with the giving email and also click on his website to see his work. I finally believed in him and told him about my problem. He prepared some Herbal medicines and which I was advice to take for three weeks, There are lot to say about Dr. Sani, I Thank God that this man was used to end my sorrows. All my pains and sorrows turn to joy and history from the day I came in contact with Dr. SANI, Who really help with his herbal medicines, I WAS TOLD HE IS A HERBAL SPECIALIST AND HE CAN BE OF HELP, I gave him a try and it really work out for me, today here I'm cured of B-cell lymphomas. If you need any help from him, you can contact him via: (perfectherbalcure@gmail.com ) OR Call/WhatsApp: +2348118184266

I was diagnosed B-cell lymphomas which are types of lymphoma affecting B cells. Lymphomas are blood cancers" in the lymph nodes. They develop more frequently in older adults and in immunocompromised individuals. I remember being on my knees praying, “God, I will fight as hard as I can if you just let me get through this chemo stuff.” When I went in, Dr. Noy said, “I have something that’s going to help. I’m going to give you Procrit after you get your chemo.” Once I got the Procrit, I never felt again like I had after that first chemo treatment. I got tired and I didn’t feel 100 percent, but I was really okay. My cancer became very real to me once I lost my hair. But by then the mystery, the uncertainty, was sort of gone. Not gone, but it just wasn’t at the forefront. There were things that I started looking forward to doing, like going out and not just staying in the house. By then, the weather had started getting really nice, and I decided I needed to get out. I would go for a long walk or take the subway into the city and look in the store windows. It’s funny, people I didn’t know would chat with me on the bus, on the train. We would talk about anything. That made me feel a lot better. It come a day when i was told by a lady to try and do some research on the internet for help maybe there will be a cure to my Cancer. I google for treatment for cancer and I saw some testimony about the herbal specialist called Dr. SANI and the great work of his Herbal Medicines. With the hope I have in God I believe this to be the end of my problem for I have prayed for a solution from God. I contact Dr. SANI with the giving email and also click on his website to see his work. I finally believed in him and told him about my problem. He prepared some Herbal medicines and which I was advice to take for three weeks, There are lot to say about Dr. Sani, I Thank God that this man was used to end my sorrows. All my pains and sorrows turn to joy and history from the day I came in contact with Dr. SANI, Who really help with his herbal medicines, I WAS TOLD HE IS A HERBAL SPECIALIST AND HE CAN BE OF HELP, I gave him a try and it really work out for me, today here I'm cured of B-cell lymphomas. If you need any help from him, you can contact him via: (perfectherbalcure@gmail.com ) OR Call/WhatsApp: +2348118184266

22:10 : 5 strict chin-ups, 45 jumping pull-ups, 100 strict push-ups, 150 air squats

Scaled to 35, 70, 105; respectively. First 10 pull-ups without a band then started using a thin band for remaining. 23:28 (pull-ups and especially push-ups very weak)

Scaled pull-ups to banded pull down from the bar. 16:35

21:57 Rx 47 y/o, 200#

15:07 Rx

16:56 5 partitions (10,20,30)

Rx 13:27

17:50 as rx’d 5:45 for pull-ups, 7:13 for pushups, 4:52 for squats. All pull-ups with pronated grip and no eccentric. (Dead hang, pull chest toward bar until chin clears, drop and land...) still a bit fatigued from the last pull-up workout I think!

20.11 Horizontal bar pull ups Press ups were a killer.

Time consuming as it was, I enjoyed reading this now involved thread. Many thanks to Greg Glassman for being the catalyst and to all the others for your thought provoking discussions. As Seyfried’s associate for over 8 years now, it’s nice to see that Warburg’s work continues to captivate journalists, scientists and physicians. In 2009, after comprehensive study of Warburg’s 1956 paper ‘On the origin of cancer cells’ I wanted to study the Warburg Theory of Cancer. Seyfried made that possible; every other scientist was consumed by popular science. Seyfried and I have spent countless hours going back and forth about Warburg’s Theory and the Somatic Mutation Theory. Some individuals on this thread discuss the Mitochondrial Metabolic Theory (MMT), but I will focus my words on the the Warburg Theory of Cancer (TWC). Having read and thought about each paper carefully, I am extremely familiar with the nuclear transfer experiments that Seyfried discusses in relation to the Somatic Mutation Theory. Eventually and after much deliberation I came to the conclusion that the Warburg Theory of Cancer and the Somatic Mutation Theory can co-exist, quite elegantly by the way. Briefly and simply put, somatic mutations and aneuploidy allow lactate fermentation to increase as carcinogenic agents cause insufficient respiration. What is clear and established is that a hallmark of cancer is genetic instability and mutation. In other words the genome of the cancer cell is always changing (instability). Currently, most of the cancer field targets cancer cell genetics. It is unwise to target a hallmark of cancer cells that is unstable. What is also clear and established is that another hallmark of cancer cells is deregulated cellular energetics. THE DEREGULATED CELLULAR ENERGETICS HALLMARK IS STABLE. Seyfried wisely chooses to target the stable deregulated energetics hallmark. In fact, the state of a low-protein ketosis can indeed target many other STABLE hallmarks of cancer at the same time, e.g. tumor promoting inflammation. Another hallmark of cancer cells is sustained proliferative signalling. X-rays and most chemotherapy agents target the sustained proliferative signalling of cancer cells. This is unwise. Many normal healthy cells need to proliferate. Most physicians like Gorski continue in this unwise manner. If they do not, they encounter many problems, e.g. financial issues and/or other physicians calling them quacks. Scientists never have it right; there is always a more correct answer and more information missing. True science is not about following popular thought, but about mustering the courage and having the insight to ask the right questions at the right time. Seyfried is an excellent true scientist. Warburg and Seyfried are indeed relatively correct. Are they absolutely correct? Impossible. REFERENCES: Warburg, O. H. On the Origin of Cancer Cells. Science 123, 309—314 (1956). Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646—74 (2011).

18:37

16:48

18:29 Rx

Rx 12:13

20:49 Rx

12:12:60

As Rx'd 13:24

22:38 rx 5’9 m 36

11:59 Rx’d

Finally, a bit about Dunning Kruger effect: the last paragraph is relevant to the points that Stanley and I are making vis a vis Greg: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/misunderstanding-dunning-kruger/

Greg: in a verbose and circuitous way, it does. And I think at this point we are just going around in circles- with you living up to reputation as somebody who will sooner or later resort to coarse insults. Good luck with your efforts changing medical culture- wherever they lead.

21:40 RX

“One of the things that may be required for someone to come to the conclusion that "Seyfried seems to think he invented the hypothesis that cancer is a metabolic disease" would be to never look at anything Seyfried has produced because he's ineligible for honest, fair, or intellectual evaluation because of his associations, where he published, and his "lack of weight given to the mainstream view". Greg: I’ve read this paragraph five times and still have no idea what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

Laura :”for Dr. Gorski to comment that he would visit the cancer metabolism section at a conference and think, “nothing to see here,” I’m pretty sure that is not Gorski’s point. “People too often use their titles to tear down others. Sure Dr. Gorski has an MD, but Dr. Seyfried has a Ph.D ” Nor is that. “But automatically writing off an entire field of research simply because Dr. Seyfried was somehow associated with Mercola” I don’t think anybody has done that here. “Dr. Seyfried isn’t the danger to society, people like Dr. Gorski are. ” Merciful heavens! “Is [the Ketogenic diet] worth trying in conjunction with accepted courses of treatment? Yes. Is it worth trying when all else fails? Absolutely.” That is, very succinctly put, the mindset that drives all cancer related quackery. And, although you have a good point about the strengths of academic biologists vs. MD oncologists, no clinician with bedside experience could dismiss the harm of alternative cancer treatment as blithely as you just did. It’s not that these unproven treatments have no scientific basis-but that their proponents run far ahead of the evidence- as Taubes puts it, desperate people take desperate measures. The fallout in terms of wasted money and strained relationships ( as well as foregoing actual evidence based treatments that can be effective) are not as benign as you may suppose.

“We are going to find someone who believes in the somatic mutation theory of oncogenesis that will explain to us how to square that theory with the nuclear-cytoplasm experiments.“ Greg: I suggest you go to an AACR meeting and find that “someone” to answer your questions! To suppose that non scientists can answer your questions in a meaningful way has been addressed upthread.

34'37" - (pull-ups butterfly)

RX 16:27

22:12 RX

16:15

I appreciate the level at which most everyone is discussing the issue considering their varying backgrounds. It’s hard to take Dr. Gorski’s article seriously because oncologists are not biologists. They rarely understand actual molecular or biochemical mechanisms and are typically against any kind of “restricted” diet because they erroneously think it means starving the patient, which also means they don’t fully understand whole body physiology. Everyone seems to be harping on the fact that Dr. Seyfried’s work is done in mice. All drugs that are available today were developed in--you guessed it--mouse models. However, those models were what we call xenograft models, where human tumors were grown in a mouse that lacked a functional immune system. How is that representative of the environment in which cancer thrives? The mouse models that Dr. Seyfried uses are syngeneic, meaning the tumor grew in a mouse with a fully functioning immune system. That's a much more realistic set of circumstances, right? So to be clear, ALL research starts in the mouse. Are we lacking clinical data? Yes of course. However, regardless of the “origin” of cancer (a topic which, frankly, is secondary to the main point), the cancer field is in strong agreement that cancer metabolizes sugar differently than most other cells in the body. Cancer also metabolizes amino acids differently than most cells in the body. This hallmark of cancer is the basis for a large and growing number of biotech and pharmaceutical companies looking to do exactly what Dr. Seyfried is doing--stop, slow, or even inhibit cancer. Is Dr. Seyfried passionate about his research? Yes. Can he use too much hyperbole? Yes. And I agree that can hurt his case. But, medical professionals have the responsibility to stay up to date on scientific progress, and for Dr. Gorski to comment that he would visit the cancer metabolism section at a conference and think, “nothing to see here,” is clear evidence that he is missing and misunderstanding a major and important aspect of cancer biology; that is a much bigger disservice to the public than any YouTube video by Dr. Seyfried. As we all may know, the ketogenic diet is well established for the treatment of epilepsy. Why is it such a stretch to think it could be effective in other diseases that are linked by similar signaling pathways (mTOR)? These discussions tend to bring out too many absolutes that obscure the main points. Can the ketogenic diet “cure” cancer? Probably not. Does that mean that it’s completely useless? Probably not. Scientific research is always in flux. One day we think one thing, the next we think the opposite. But automatically writing off an entire field of research simply because Dr. Seyfried was somehow associated with Mercola and to automatically label him a quack is just plain ignorant. People too often use their titles to tear down others. Sure Dr. Gorski has an MD, but Dr. Seyfried has a Ph.D and has spent his life researching the ketogenic diet. Dr. Gorski seems to have read one article and immediately arrived at an opinion of him. Using his title he can influence a whole host of people, including those who are at the end of their lives and looking for some hope. Dr. Seyfried brings those people hope when nothing else has worked. How many people have decided “oh I shouldn’t do this potentially life extending diet because some physician told me it was bad”? Dr. Seyfried isn’t the danger to society, people like Dr. Gorski are. People that think they’re experts and are not, but can easily portray themselves as such. What makes it pseudoscience? Simply because you don’t buy it? I am a former student of Dr. Seyfried. I have published with him on the metabolic origin of cancer and am currently still in the field. Of course the issue much more complicated than simply “cancer needs sugar." Does the ketogenic diet offer a solution to limit the main fuel of most cancer cells? Yes it does. Plain and simple, the ketogenic diet--like taking oxygen away from a fire--limits the major fuel source of most cancer cells. Is it a dangerous diet? No. Is it a difficult diet? Yes. However, you’d be amazed by the strength of will when faced with a death sentence. Is it worth trying in conjunction with accepted courses of treatment? Yes. Is it worth trying when all else fails? Absolutely. And unless someone has closely studied and possesses an in-depth knowledge of cancer biology (which most MDs unfortunately don't have), they shouldn't dismiss the diet out of hand.

11:02 rx

11:47 Rx'd CrossFit08844

19:34 Pull-ups: 4:35 Pushups: 13:30 Squats: 19:34 M/59/6’2”/230

24min 12sec RX ...

14분 43초 CrossFit HIM 대한민국 경기도 안양시

10:57 Rx M/42/78kg

24:24 I SUCK at pull ups

One last comment: Gorski is not going to engage, but if he did, I’ll bet he would say: “Seyfried seems to think he invented the hypothesis that cancer is a metabolic disease. He’s a few years behind the times. That was a favorite topic of the studies at the meetings of the American Association for Cancer Research meeting (which I attend almost every year) several years back. Then it faded into the background in favor of immunotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors.” He would also be amused that Taubes doesn’t think he understands about being a maverick!

M/42/5'4"/150lbs As Rx'd 14:38

When I see Greg saying someone has to explain the nuclear transfer experiments or accept the MMT is valid, three possibilities come to mind: 1. The researchers did the experiments correctly and interpreted the results correctly and these experiments are reproducible in many different mouse models, in which case they represent significant report for the MMT. And, yes, we should all accept it, with the caveat, as we’ll discuss, that some huge proportion of the cancer research community is simply not paying attention (even if, as Gorski says, more are than ever). 2. The researchers did the experiments correctly and interpreted the results correctly, in these cases, but these experiments represent only a small percentage of all the similar experiments ever done. And Tom is selecting the experiments he likes to make his case and ignoring others, perhaps many others. This is common in research and is often necessary. Science is full of misleading research (as we’ll also discuss) and so the researcher has to pick and choose the experiments he or she thinks were most meaningful. If so, he isn’t citing the others either because they weren’t published – as negative results typically aren’t – or because he didn’t find them somehow in his search, or perhaps he found reasons to dismiss them when he did find them, based on his assessment of their quality. Anything is possible. 3. The researchers screwed these experiments up, or misinterpreted the results, and got the wrong answer. On this forum particularly we’re more than willing to accept the fact that much to most medical research is unreliable. Twenty years ago when I wrote about this problem for Technology Review, I quoted the Australian philosopher of science John Ziman suggesting that 90 percent of the research published in physics journals (a much harder science than medicine) was wrong or misinterpreted and that the process of science, was in effect, the process of figuring out which ten percent of the information is actually right or meaningful and transferring that to the text books (which are then 90 percent right and only 10 percent misleading). And this was physics. Lord knows what the percentage of wrong or meaningful results are in medicine and biology but it’s assuredly high. And the fact that a dozen researchers found the same thing could mean it’s right or it could mean that they’re trapped in a cascade, all seeing in their experiments and so believing what they want to believe. Skepticism is always in order. So that’s the point. Seyfried may be right about the MMT and that’s vitally important if he is. In his article he quotes Peyton Rous to the effect that; “the somatic mutation theory acts like a tranquilizer on those who believe in it” (Rous, 1959). In cases like this (which can also include the amyloid theory of Alzheimer’s and, my favorite, the energy balance theory of obesity) it’s hard to overestimate the effect of the paradigm on not just the thinking of researchers (the tranquilizer effect) but the funding of studies and the publishing of studies that are published and the interpretation of studies that are published. The conventional wisdom infects and influences the science from top to bottom, from past to future. CrossFit Health discussed all of these problems in its summer conference. Everything gets biased to support the accepted paradigm. It’s also hard for physicians and researchers working inside the medical establishment (Gorski, in this case) to understand the position of the researchers who find themselves challenging that established paradigm, the position of the heretic. Tom is a heretic and Gorski is judging him from the position of someone who seems to think that there are a set of rules that heretics can follow just like any other researchers that will, if they’re patient and if they’re right, lead to the overthrow of the orthodoxy. But there are no rules. No book to read. The heretic is making it up as he or she goes along, trying to overcome a kind of institutionalized cognitive dissonance/groupthink that has such enormous unimaginable inertia that it may be impervious to assault. The heretics in these cases are the equivalent of whistle-blowers in a misconduct or fraud case, but they’re not challenging the work and intellectual integrity of one laboratory or one researcher in one institution, they’re challenging the work and intellectual integrity of virtually all labs and all researchers in their discipline and all institutions. While they may not be claiming that these researchers have acted unethically, they are claiming that they got the wrong answer and believed the wrong thing on the most important question in their field. That may be worse. (When I lectured on obesity and the problems with the energy balance hypothesis at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center half a dozen or more years ago, one of the older researchers in the room raised his hand in the Q&A that followed asked very politely, “Mr. Taubes, is it fair to say that one subtext of your presentation is that we are all idiots?” It was the obvious implication. In response, I prevaricated and said no.) It’s only when ignored that whistle blowers and heretics have to go outside the lines of institutional processes to be heard. In whistleblower cases, they go to the newspapers or bloggers or whomever they can get to listen. In these paradigm issues, they end up talking to anyone who will listen, even if the people who do listen (Mercola) tend to be a bit too accepting of anything that is outside the mainstream. Calling Seyfried a “bad actor,” as Mary does, is a valid opinion, but it’s almost always the establishment position. If Mary was parenting, I don’t think she’d say he was a bad actor so much as that this particular action was bad, and then try to understand the reason behind this. And the reason is likely to be it’s difficult to stay suitably restrained and scientific when you think you know something that will save lives and the establishment (knock knock knock) is not listening, or not listening enough from your POV. That said, I think Tom should be more aware of this and he should be more restrained. Gorski’s response and Stanley Nasraway’s comment are proof that Tom hurts his credibility by his pronouncements on the diet and by his lack of understanding of how Mercola is perceived. He has to do better. It’s part of the job of challenging the establishment: Communicating your ideas against enormous institutional inertia while remaining credible in the process. It ain’t easy, and there’s no book, but it goes with the job. The cancer world is an extreme case. Gorski’s context, as he implies, is that the cancer world is full of people who are desperate and desperate people are targets for quacks and quackery. Despite the fact that I do believe that cancer is a metabolic disease and I do believe that insulin and IGF are drivers, I’m also skeptical that ketogenic diets will make a huge difference in treating the disease. I’m less skeptical of the idea that ketogenic diets or at least LCHF or paleo diets will help prevent cancer, but whether or not I’m skeptical is irrelevant. These latter questions can be studied and answered by trials. But I disagree with Mary that CrossFit is doing a disservice by discussing Seyfried’s article. This science and its implications for medicine and dietary therapy have to be aired. People have to know that ketogenic diets might, maybe, possibly could help. When I wrote about the possibility that sugar causes cancer in the New York Times Magazine (2011), I faced the same problem. I knew that I was pushing the envelope of the science and I knew that I would be accused, perhaps rightfully of scaremongering, but somebody had to say these things. In fact, I assumed the editors wouldn’t want me to, and they were the ones talking me into it. So I said it, but I put it in perspective. It may be right. It has to be said. But it could be wrong. You do with the speculative information what you wish. Those with cancer, though, are desperate. It’s a harder tightrope to walk between conveying the information and not encouraging deleterious behavior. Re the MMT, even if it’s as surely right as Tom and Greg think, it’s likely to take decades for cancer researchers to shift their perspective. At that point, the general assumption will be that they knew it all along. I agree with Greg that all this is vitally important to clarify, but the way the NIH funds research these days, there’s no mechanism by which the research community can be made to decide en masse that a question or a controversy has to be clarified, that it’s so vitally important all researchers working in related disciplines should do whatever it takes to clarify it, rather than do what they were doing all along. This is part of the tranquilizing effect that Rous mentioned. Business, as usual, is almost invariably the rule of the day. You study what you can get funded to study and what you can get funded to study is typically what you’ve been doing all along, which is by definition based on conventional thinking. It would be nice if something like the MMT could do the scientific equivalent of going viral, but I’m not sure such a thing is possible in the existing scientific environment. It may happen in slow motion, but we’ll need patience.

Greg, you've asked generally for someone to speak directly to the theory of mitochondrial derangements as a cause of neoplastic growth, and to set aside criticisms of Seyfried. Normally, I'd reply to you directly, but you have edited your comments and there is no link to reply to your comments now. The reason no one has stepped up here is twofold: 1. most of us know our limitations as physicians or physician/scientists, and we understand we are not qualified to speak off the cuff about the nuances of cellular research, dissecting good from bad studies. 2. Seyfried's treatise from Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology is a review from a low impact online journal with > 100 references. To dissect his theories and listed references to determine its legitimacy would personally take me weeks of personal time, which I cannot literally afford to do. If you want an educated alternative explanation to Seyfried and Warburg, you need to ask a qualified scientist, preferably an academic oncologist who also runs a research lab, and has 15-20 years of experience with patients and research who really understands the field and origin of cancer. These individuals exist, you need to find them for a legitimate, informed answer. That said, one has to be skeptical of individuals who publish in low impact online journals. Frontiers is an entity that based on its website has dozens of virtual journals and charges for its publications. In 2015, it was just years old. The trusted best journals such as Science, Cell, Nature, JAMA, Lancet, New England J of Medicine quite often are many decades or a century old. They have a track record of quality control, and DO NOT charge for publication. The latter is a recent money making invention by for profit entities and take advantage of young academicians' desire to buff their resume and publish, as an example. I loved that CF published the article by Jeff Glassman which speaks to being exact and factually correct. He stated, "Weak scientists will strengthen their beliefs and stances by promoting their models while demoting the competition." Thank you for posting this full discussion and comments; it's been civil and thought provoking.

19:34, Rx’d

19:34, Rx’d

38/male/Rx/ 18:22

13:15 Broke it up into 10 rounds of 5 pullups, 10 push ups, 15 squats.

Actually, I would like to apologize to the Flat Earth Society for any comparison to Mercola.

Greg: it’s possible Seyfried is correct about cancer pathophysiology and musters all of the evidence in his Cell piece without cherry picking or distortion. But, not being a cell biologist, I am not in a position to weigh the evidence- and neither, I would add, is anyone without a background in the field. Your responses to various objections about Seyfried also beg the question of why CrossFit posted this article- to have a learned discussion about cell physiology? Or rather because the topic has practical application to a narrative favored by CrossFit? If the second, then pointing out Seyfried’s Fails in the practical application of theory department is not merely an ad hominem. It’s as if an astrophysicist complains that everyone is ignoring his hot new theory- but then allows himself to be interviewed and promoted by the Flat Earth Society. Seyfried’s association with Mercola looks bad for him in the same way. Make a plausible case for a new way to look at cancer physiology and people will listen. But complaining that mainstream medicine has it all wrong while posting YouTube’s of interviews by Mercola will earn him the derision of cancer physicians.

Greg, we’re not against a metabolic origin to cancer; just to drawing conclusions beyond what human evidence supports. Otherwise, see Mary who obviously had the best English teacher amongst any of us. ;)

19:12

15:02

Gorski doesn’t so much object to the mitochondrial theory of cancer, as he says at the outset: “Dr. Seyfried’s argument that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease (an argument I’ll look at in more depth shortly) is well within the bounds of current oncologic science. Indeed, a few years ago it was all the rage, and I remember attending several sessions and lectures on the Warburg effect and cancer at the AACR meetings three or four years ago, although, oddly enough, I don’t recall as many the last couple of years.” His distaste (and mine) for Seyfried arises from Seyfried’s statements re: keto diet treatment for cancer. Here Seyfried has been a bad actor, contributing to the swirl of half truths and frank woo that physicians like Gorski and I have to contend with. It’s good, I suppose, that in conversations with you Seyfried has walked back his wilder statements from earlier (quoted by Gorski and referenced by Stanley, upthread). But the damage has been done, and his difficulty understanding how clinical evidence works ( again, referenced by Gorski) means other claims will be met with more skepticism than perhaps they deserve to be.

13:56 re do and better

This was a good series of comments. I appreciate Mary's deft tact, and citing the Gorski reference, which I think I had also posted many months ago on FB CF Physicians thread. It was a good read. I also appreciate Greg's disclosure as to CF's and his personal relationship with Dr. Seyfried. While Seyfried may not have told you KD "cures cancer", I have listened to him on podcasts and in videos, and he absolutely runs wild and states KD halts or reverses cancer. Look, I'm all in favor of validating or invalidating a theory with good science. Perhaps cancer has a metabolic component, which can be attacked successfully with a diet strategy. However, promoting pseudoscience or allowing others to do so is dangerous; some patients with real disease or cancer will be convinced to follow these unproven regimens at the expense of other regimens that have an actual chance at remission. That's why giving individuals like Seyfried a forum is dangerous, and misleading, to young physicians, to athletes at the Games via CF Health, and on CF Journal. Since you agree in your comments that Seyfried's position is controversial and his evidence is "thin", at the very least, why not consider a balanced approach, having someone else provide the alternative point of view? Pat, we've all been touched by cancer, directly or otherwise. The 2nd most common cause of death in Western civilization. I've had my own experience with it. Great inroads have been made with Coronary Artery Disease; lifespans are increasing, mortality is declining. I expect cancer to become the #1 cause of death in the U.S. overtaking CAD.

23:55rx

17:39 Rx

19 minutes 50 Ring rows 100 push ups (took forever) 150 squats

I'm a vet who began doing Crossfit while deployed in Iraq in 2008. What I've noticed over the past 10 years is that the workouts have gotten progressively harder as the elite athletes have continued to get more fit. The following workout was from the main site on 25 Jan 2011: Three rounds for time of: 12 Muscle-ups 75 Squats. Now days the workouts are routinely 5-7 rounds. Well, in 10 years I've gone from 36 to 46 years old and the RX'd workouts are not as easy or safe for me as they were in 2008. I've continued to do Crossfit workouts but have realized the need to scale them for my ability. I understand HQ advancing the workouts for the benefit of the elite athletes but I do not understand them taking away what they already published (scaling and how-to-videos) for the rest of us average Joes that make up the bulk of their patronage. You've already produced the instructional videos, so making them is not available is no additional trouble. In fact, pulling them down from your site was more work than leaving them up. AND scaling for intermediates and beginners is not that difficult to add on a daily basis. Especially considering that you've previously runoff other sites that provided that service on your behalf. I don't understand the rational behind these HQ decisions and find them very disloyal to your base. I hope you'll reconsider your choices and bring back the videos and scaling soon.

M, 27, 191 lbs, 6’0” / 10:34 Rx

17:21 rx

19:58 RX

57 / 172 rx'd, 13:47; 4:05, 4:05, 5:37

I thought I saw a lesson plan on Facebook for the recent deadlift/handstand workout a couple days ago! What was the other one they took down? Anyway they were fun while they lasted!

10:57 30 strict pull ups, 20 jumping 100 push ups 150 squats

18:05 RX

M,5'11",212,23:11rxd

11:16 w/strict ring pull ups 37/M/68”/171lbs

5’8” / 160 lb / 20 / M Rx’d 10:45

14:52, rx or cindy format (5-10-15), pull ups were being subbed in places for some form of kip on the rebound (head was fully over bar for 95%). Missed 2 push up on last 2 sets.

No pull up bar so had to modify with a barbell and rack slightly. 9:37

14.44 fat bar pull ups Added a 5k onto the back for good measure 😨

19:22, numbers Rx, pull-up subbed for combine row @165

12'54" 5 Rounds 5-10-15

16:42 Rx

15:57 Rx M/46/200/71" Nice to be able to Rx a CrossFit.com WOD at the layover hotel gym!

44:33 Rx

24:03 Rx

Super stoked to see so many people offering their opinions in constructive ways and the responses from HQ folks. In regards to the changes: I didn't like it at first, but now I do. I like the crutch being taken away. If you are serious about this stuff as a way of leading a healthy life, you'll adapt and overcome with the fitness knowledge you have acquired over your life. If your not serious about it, you'll move on to something else and be happy with that. If you are just starting, ask those who know. I'll end my thoughts with one of my favorite quotes: There is no growth in comfort and no comfort in growth. Semper Paratus!

I have had the pleasure to hear Dr. Seyfried in person on several occasions. He is sharp, extremely well-experienced in his craft, and truly dedicated to improving the current situation and treatment of cancer...which is horrific. Determining if Dr. Seyfried is correct is beyond my capacity, but I hope he is. I have had family members suffer through the current protocols for treating cancer and it seems just as terrible as the disease itself.

23:27 Rx

So I am still new to cross fit so I scaled mine. 50 pull ups using a green band 80 pushups using a green band 125 air squats. My time you ask? 35 min. I am way more out of shape than I thought.

53 YOM 5’6” 221 Scaled 5 rounds for time 10 assisted band chins 20 Push ups 30 Air Squats 26:28

12:36

CFWU: 5 strict dips, 5 kipping pullups some strict. No pullups or dips last round 29:38, rx'd. I have a cold, so I just did the work as best I could. Accessory: Three sets of: 15 Dumbbell Skull Crushers 15# dumbbells 15 Dumbbell Tate Press 15 Dumbbell Floor Press (perform as a complex laying flat on the floor.) Rest 30 seconds 45 seconds Hollow Hold 3, 2, 1...done

13:06 RX

13:46 RX

14:08 rx

Scaled to 30 body rows (my gym doesn’t have rings)/60 Push-ups/90 Squats in 14:38. Goal was under 18

Scaled to 30 body rows (my gym doesn’t have rings)/60 Push-ups/90 Squats in 14:38. Goal was under 18

Thought I started my timer, but didn’t. Completed it RX. Took what seemed to be forever. Much tougher than I expected.

I skied 50k. It took me 3hrs 42min. Regularly learn and play new sports. Stop whining about scaling. None of us knew what we were doing when we first started following .com..and with a little brain power we figured it out. The options are infinite and highly subjective and thus will be more productive and effective when you figure it on your own.

24:05, sub strict pull-ups for jumping chin-ups, sub kneeling push-ups for push-ups, RX air squats.

5 Rounds x 5 pull-ups (17 strict, 8 kipping), 10 push-ups 75 squats 5 Rounds x 5 pull-ups (8 strict, 17 kipping), 10 push-ups 75 squats 14:23 Goal was to keep moving and not spend several hours staring at the bar trying for 50 strict pull-ups :) I maybe missed the intent of the workout but still got some good exercise in. My legs are toast from a morning of teleskiing and from snowshoeing yesterday with about 45lbs on my back.

Really do love the direction CrossFit is heading. The health space as it is today needs the correction and CrossFit is leading the charge.

12:12 Rx movements but partioned.

For time: 50 strict pull-ups 100 push-ups 150 squats 21:30

I am relatively new to all of this, but I have been following this discussion about scaling etc with some interest. It seems pretty straightforward to scale this. I always start with the question; "Can I even do the movements in the WOD?" I follow that with "Can I do the volume of movements as prescribed with good form?" If not, I either find similar movements that work the same muscle groups (or do skill work to eventually be succesful at the prescribed movement) and/or scale the volume of work to my ability set. Todays WOD contained movements I can do, but not even close to unbroken at that volume and not even at the prescribed volume without being absolutely destroyed for several days. (I plan to ski tomorrow, so I backed off a bit) I decided to set a goal of completing the work at 70% of the load, and then scaling/ breaking into sets that fit my ability. The result was 5 sets of 7-14-21, culminating in 35 pullups, 70 pushups, and 105 squats. I got the first three rounds in unbroken, but on the 4th my pull-ups were 4-3 and pushups 12-2 and on the 5th round, I went 4-1-1-1 on pull-ups and 10-3-1 on pushups. I did this in 14:25. My girlfriend did the WOD with me in the same rep scheme, but she can't do more than one pullup without bands, so she went banded and also did modified pushups against a box. I think with some creativity it's pretty easy to scale stuff. I can understand the competitive nature of wanting to know where you stand with people who scaled exactly the same as you, but at the end of the day, it's me vs. me when I workout. That's just my two cents.

Did not time but did it backwards. 150 squats 100 table push ups 50 ring rows Was watching my daughter so had to get it in while she was eating and 50 strict pull-ups and 100 push ups supple of taking me awhile!!

you is a BRAIN !!

14:32 30 pull-ups 65 push-ups 100 squats

19.14

"Crossfit training" on Facebook and Instagram have scaling options, when they do lessonplans for Mainsite WODs. They don't always do them but they're extremely helpful to me when they do them. There is a lesson plan for today's WOD

14:48 Rx 100 push-ups took 10sec less than 50 pull-ups. 🤷🏻‍♀️ Pull-ups are still a weakness, but improving each time.

Intermediate 30 strict pull-ups 70 push-ups 150 squats 13:38

17:08...January is teaching me a lesson

35:44. Pullups (orange: 7, grey: 7, black: 36). Pushups (normal: 35, knees: 65). Next time, all black band and knees.

13:35 Rx m/50/5'11"/195#

23’ RX

15:56

15:56

13:08 RX

Really tough one. I broke it up into two parts with my run. 3:40 for first half then ran two miles then completed second half at 8:44. Focused on changing my lifestyle but tough starting.

25:42 10x 5 Medium black band pull up 10 PUs to snakes (3rd rd) 3x 50 air squats 2 of my weakest movements in here but a good chance to practice. Keep shoulders down in the PU. For the squat, hands to the side is better than hands in front. Keep core engaged, even in the bottom of the squat. Stretch that left side.

22:57 rx pullups took me 8 min and push-ups another 10 😂

15:17 Rx. Tried to slog through pull ups and push ups going 10 & 20 at a time and then go all out blitz on the squats in sets of 50&60. Somewhat successful, but 5 sets of 10-20-30 still seems like my recipe for success.

I hear the demand for scaling orientation and my opinion is that is completely reasonable as well as necesary and intelligent. However, you guys we are crossfiters, that is, we love and train crossfit. If you need Scaling, and the freely prescribed mainsite wod does not offer one, have you thought about the benefits of killing two birds usong only one stone? by supporting CrossFit and learning how to scale properly via applying for the Scaling online course, in my view would be just that. Just my 2c's.

20:33 Rx, this the 3rd time I have tried to post my time but I still don’t see it.

RX 18:32

M/41/6’3”/215 15:29

16:02 RX

17:33 and I feel death

Please bring back the scaled options. That was the best change CrossFit had made to the website, the most helpful and inclusive addition..... please bring it back.

30 pull-ups 70 push-ups 150 air squat 14:52

Scaled to 50 ring rows 100 knee push-ups 150 squats 18:51 Goal was to stay under 19 👍🏼

17:40 🖖🏾🏋🏽‍♂‚️

13:45 RX

18:05 Rx "I'll just make up some time on the squats" did not prove to be a successful strategy. Nice chipper!

11:48 rx

11:58 Rxd. The push ups saved me in the 1,2,3 workout, but crushed me in this one. Also, the pull-ups went fast. And the squats were tough.

22:19 Rx

12:13 Rx

Taking a step back to Jeff Glassman’s 1/3/19 post…if we looked at Seyfried’s conjecture (MMT, the mitochondrial mutation theory) and compared it to the common alternative (SMT, the somatic mutation theory), which would we find more consistent with existing evidence? Which requires fewer exceptions and modifications? Seyfried here makes the case nuclear gene mutations are both insufficient and unnecessary to initiate tumorigenesis, which would seem to rule them out as the primary insult. That said, given the frequency with which they are observed, the true primary insult would need to consistently cause these mutations over time, consistently be observed in cancer, and originate in the cytoplasm to be more consistent with the nuclear transfer data Seyfried cites. The MMT seems more consistent with the observations Seyfried presents than the SMT, while remaining sufficient to explain the other defects commonly observed in cancer. As Seyfried notes, it’s also compelling from an Occam’s Razor perspective. It may be that the genetic heterogeneity observed in cancer reflects the true course of the disease. But if there were an explanation that accounted for this observed heterogeneity but was simpler in itself - and the MMT succeeds on both counts - it would seem worth exploring until it has been clearly supported or discredited. Doesn’t mean it’s right, of course. I’m curious how the broader cancer community responds to Seyfried’s core conjecture (to use Glassman’s terminology strictly) and his observations. If, as he argues, mitochondrial defects are universal in cancer, and given the prominence of Warburg’s work, this hypothesis cannot be obscure, and can’t have gone unchallenged. Having not yet read his critics, I suspect there are observations this model fails to explain. I see a source has already been suggested here, I look forward to digging into this one and others.

11:10 25/50/75, did in sets of 5/10/15 assisted pull ups after first round

14:39 Rx

Just noticed, as I was paging thru and commenting on people's comments...every time you "reply to" the site takes you back to the top of the comments section. Makes commenting, and thus furthering the sense of community, a little more difficult. All that said, we're still very lucky to get this programming for free. So Coach, I hope you make some fixes to the site, but this 8+ year barn/garage CFer still appreciates what you and the team do for us.

656 rx

50 Pull-up 💪, 150 push-up 💪 150 squats Thanks 🙏 for training, Total time 15;16 Rx.

FWIW, I also miss the scaling options, even though I did CF for years before they were offered. Agree w/ Travis, tough; that self-scaling runs the risk of scaling into one's comfort zone. What I miss most on the new site is the "compare to" link back to the last time the WOD was prescribed. Really helped us compare our progress (or regression, sometimes!) over time. I have a spreadsheet to track my WODs, but that doesn't tell me when I last did a particular workout.

11:34 rx’d

Everybody's commenting on the scaling. I agree with most: it really helps as a guideline because I'm too old/small/weak to do most of these Rx. But what REALLY helps is the explanation of the WOD objectives: whether it's designed to be a sprint or a 1RM, or whatever we should be trying to achieve. Expanding on how to approach the WOD has been SO HELPFUL to understand how to scale/sub, what to expect, etc. -- whether with the videos or in writing, that's EXTREMELY helpful.

12:42 Rx (mostly - I kipped the last 11 pull-ups). But this feels like a half-a-Murph so I added the other half: I started and ended by running 1/2 mile on my elliptical (Level 6). No vest, though. TOTAL time including elliptical = 25:20.

After CF Warm-up, a little lifting...8-9-10-11 deadlift, with 215#. Bar too cold to go much heavier. Then, 13:43 rx. Pull-ups took until 5:54, then to 9:15 for the push-ups.

14:56 rx M/6-3/215lbs

Just a quick note on workout scaling.... While I applaud the renewed focus of the CrossFit organization on health and wellness, taking down the workout scaling is counterproductive. If your goal is to get the woman from the Jan 2nd photo off the couch, you need to demonstrate how the workouts can be made easily accessible to all fitness levels. It doesn't matter if scaling is easy, widely available, etc etc. The presence of scaling on the "official" page serves as a validation to newcomers of the entire idea of scaling. It "proves" to every new person who lands on the site that Crossfit is specifically targeted at *them*, wherever they happen to be in their fitness journey. It is emotionally satisfying to complete an "official" workout. For many people, scaling on their own feels like a failure, like they couldn't hack it. It's not logical, but it's emotionally true for many people. Bringing back the scaling will make the site much more appealing to those you are most interested in helping.

16:46 Rx

6:10 Male 6’1”, 207lbs, age 29. Madison County Fire Richmond,Ky This WOD whipped my a$$. Seems simple enough 50/100/150. Ended up sucking wind like crazy. Almost threw up, but it was fun. I think the key is establishing a good pace number for each move. I settled with 10 pull up , to 20push up, to 30 squats. Great job everyone! Push yourself and grow. 👍🇺🇸🔥💪

6:10 Male 6’1”, 207lbs, age 29. Madison County Fire Richmond,Ky This WOD whipped my a$$. Seems simple enough 50/100/150. Ended up sucking wind like crazy. Almost threw up, but it was fun. I think the key is establishing a good pace number for each move. I settled with 10 pull up , to 20push up, to 30 squats. Great job everyone! Push yourself and grow. 👍🇺🇸🔥💪

8:29, almost puked but still got it done... AFTER a full leg workout (push day)

20:06 RX. Almost broke 20.

15:24 rx with 20lbs weighted vest

M/44/6'2"/185 From @smashwerx 16 min Amrap 3 MBC's 20#/6 pushups/9 squats 22 rds + 1 MBC

21:58 Rx

18:44 RX M/44/6’5/243

@ CrossFit Forgiven- Partner wod 800m run 100 ring dips 100 pull ups everytime you break, 5 burpees (I did a lot of burpees) 800m run 100 squats 100 kbs 53# everytime you break, 5 burpees (10 burpees) 800m run untimed m/48/175

Air squat????

16:50 Rx. Seeing Coach comment on the main site again is so exciting.

11:09 rx

15'01" RX Pull ups took ages!!

Rx 13;30

14:39 Rx'd.

17:54 Rx

Sets of 5-10-15 Total Time: 11:55

About the scaling options. If you've done Crossfit regularly for more than one year you should already know how to scale. I'm not a trainer nor am I that bright, but I know from experience what the options. If you have less than 12 months CF experience then I'm sorry but you should go to a box and get proper training from an experienced coach. Final thing, go read the page about all the legal battles Greg Glassman has to deal with and I guarantee you'll feel a lot more grateful that Crossfit even exists at all, with or without scaling options (for free of course).

For time: 30 strict pull-ups 70 push-ups 150 squats 21:29

28:50 Hi Coach!

16:00 5/10/15 ten rounds

It’s well worth going through the drawing exercise Lon recommends here. A lot of us say “frontal plane” when coaching but don’t really think about exactly what that means. Similarly, reviewing the other two planes can add some variety to programming. I can’t remember the last time I did a somersault, so it’s high time I did a few. I might pass on the axel jump for now, but I’ll take a few slap shots instead for some rotation.

I'm following the wods almost everyday here in France and I was really glad to have the scaling option with the small description. Now that it's gone this is like another wod app... It's a mistake I think.

19:44 Rx

M/44yo/5'8/206_lbs. 11:32 intermediate option

13’40”

19:15. Scaled strict pull ups to 50 Kipping pull ups. Push ups and squats Rx. Began with a 1.0 mile run, untimed.

15:19 rx

Warmup - 1 mile run, handstand practice WOD- 12:23 RX Anyone know how to track with main site programming on BTWB?

12:49

19:50 Rx🤪💪🏻

Noted skeptic David Gorski MD

Seyfried has plenty of critics, and has drawn the attention of noted skeptic and cancer surgeon (no industry shill, he) who wrote the following criticism of Seyfreid:https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-hype-versus-science/

Rx Broke it down into 5rds 10/20/30 7:13

14:25 Broken as follows: 5 jumping pull ups 10 push ups (chest to ground) 30 air squats

28.27, added the 20lb vest for extra pain! Great way to start the weekend. Have a great day all. Semper Fi Marines! Ooh Rahh

Please bring back the scaling options on the landing page for the WOD....pleasssssssseee....?

20min 49sec Rx

15'50"

16:40 rx’d

14’58”, 48M, rx

Great fundamentals for anyone thinking about how movement works!

Seems to me there is no scaling for any of these workouts, if your fitter you simply do it faster.

30 strikt pullups 70 pushups 110 airsquats Time:12:05

Man 43ys 175cm 78kg 18:10

21:02 RX

18:09 RX Coach marco 17:46 RX Coach michele 17:41 RX

Let me begin by saying that I like the new design of the website. It is clean with no unnecessary fluff. I like the additional posts on health in addition to the wod. However, I do think that the missing scaled version of the wod is a mistake. Yesterday lynne said that the site was trying to teach people to fish instead of giving them a fish sandwich. well, it seems one segment of the cf community still gets the fish sandwich but it is the wrong segment. The segment that gets the fish sandwich is experienced, those are the folks that are best able to do the scaling. The beginner, the individual with no experience coming to the site for the first time is left with an unreasonable amount of pull-ups and may just give up and go elsewhere and by elsewhere I mean an NCSA certified trainer in a globo-gym. If cf's stated goal is to help make everyone more fit, shouldn't it start with the least fit? If posting 3 wods is too much work, why not post a beginner wod that the experienced folks can scale up? A quick note on relying on others for scaling: while i appreciate everyone's attempts to fill this void, in the past they haven't been consistent. Before there were scaled wods at cf.com, I used to go to the crossfit training website but the scaled option was not always there or very late. This last year, hq got the scaled wod up there *every day*. Also, scaling in the comments section leaves those wanting it left to scroll through a ton of content to find it. On 12/31, it was available right at the top.

My finishing time 29:38 mins I used 17kg dumbbells for 50 squats and 100 body weight squats.

Hi, Some help and guidance based on postings since 1 January when this page changed and some us miss the scailing options etc. 1)start following crossfit training on Instagram where you can find the complete training plan for daily WODs. 2)start following crossfit training on Facebook where you can find the same as above. 3)continue register your results here for building facts and benchmarks for our community Wishing you all a great fitness year🙏

16:50

22:10 rx (strict pull ups went to heavy)

22:10 rx (strict pull ups went to heavy)

Since didn't have scaled did RX 15:25

To be honest as a amateur CrossFit athlete, I rely on the scaling & the tutorial videos. If these are taken away I don’t see why I should pay my subscription on this anymore. I can get WODS from apps now & other sites. I don’t need the CrossFit site. This is very sad as I thought CrossFit catered for all levels in The CrossFit community. i come on here to workout, not to read about cancer & obesity articles. If that’s your objective now then I’d rather cancel my subscription & just choose a WOD for myself from the thousands available on apps etc.

17min RX!

11:17:78 rx. Strict pull ups in 4 minutes, strict push ups and squats dragged on.

12min 10 sec Rx

17:35 RX Always need more work on my upper body pushing stamina. Thanks for the reminder .com

13:23 RX

Looking and/or thinking about the 3D body in these planes and axes helps coaches see movement and make assessments on how to move and where to make adjustments.

If you’re looking for scaling options, crossfittraining instagram has scaling options for this. Good place to look daily for help

I had the privilege of speaking with Dr. Seyfried a couple years ago. As he told me, "People say cancer’s a thousand diseases, and this is the result of the gene theory. But they’re all fermenting. They all have the same metabolic malady: They need glucose and glutamine to survive. Whether it’s a colon tumor, whether it’s a brain tumor, whether it’s a breast tumor, they’re all the same … if you look at it from the metabolic perspective, you see a singular disease of respiration.”

Easy way to remember Sagittal plane is if you look down on head from above the suture in the skull looks like an arrow. Sagitta is Latin for arrow. Coronal is the suture where a crown would sit corona is Latin word for crown.

I am missing the scaling options as well. I think that it is a huge thing that a lot of the garage people really like. I don't have the option of going to a Box, the closest one to me is 100 miles away. I think it would also be great to get back the video tutorials that were on HQ last year. I will still keep coming on everyday and posting but I am hoping that HQ does continue to add things as they have done in the past. Have a great weekend everybody!

Yummy looking WOD!

I miss the scaling notes and wish they were back.

Even though the scaling option was new last year, my 43 year-old busy-dad-self really appreciated it. I've been doing Crossfit from the main-site in my garage gym here in San Jose, CA for 8 years and have learned to scale workouts myself, but I really enjoyed having it done for me and knowing others were doing the exact version with me. I love Crossfit!

Hey the Enter options work! Nice!

Champions Club Scaling Notes: This one has me thinking just looking at if for the first time. My knee-jerk reaction is this is not "Forging Elite Fitness," but as I look longer this could be a really good one. I see this as mixing strength and stamina in the same workout. Intensity might not be too high here, and that's okay. Keep the first two exercises for quality then try to go unbroken on the squats. Here's some scales: GROUP SCALE - Pull-ups will be the tricky part because 1) ability or 2) bar space. I don't think it's a bad idea to have some newer people go kipping if their strength is not there. Kipping pull-ups take strength as well. Just reverse the grip (palms towards you) to keep the shoulder in a good position. For people that are on the fringe, don't get caught up in "chin-over-the-bar" as the standard. Any effort pulling is moving the needle towards where you went to go, whether that's eyes to bar, hair to bar, or whatever. A static hold at the top of the pull-ups might not be a bad idea either, especially if you don't want to use bands. I think you could get a lot done on this one by staying off the rings. Also, we like snaking up on push-ups as opposed to going to the knees. INJURY SCALE - if the shoulders are bothering you, I might opt for a plank hold (one-arm if needed, but stay square to the ground) and hollow body hold. If the knees or whatever is limiting a squat, try knees to elbows. INTENSITY SCALE - What I'm probably going to do for most people in my gym is to split the pull-ups variations and push-ups, then finish with all 150 squats. So something like 10 rounds of 5 pull-ups (slow/quality/etc.) and 10 push-ups. Squats I like to keep in a row because I coach basketball and I always yell at kids for coming out of their stance on defense. AJ and John have been pissing me off lately! Haha.

9:23 as Rxd

Is it typo 100 push ups then 100 push ups again ?

The WOD description in the email is wrong FYI. It shows 100 push-ups twice which I'm sure will confuse many.

Is there a reason why the scaling and instructional videos are gone? I’ve looked through the comments since January 1st and I don’t seem to find a clear answer. Is this a profit thing that CrossFit wants us to join local boxes rather than allow regular gym goers to benefit from the free website? If this is the direction HQ wants to go, does anyone know of any sites that post scaling alternatives?

You can scale pull ups to banded pull ups or if you have rings, you can do ring rows. You can do pushups with your hands on a elevated surface such as a box or bench.

I've followed Crossfit for many years. There has always been a resource for those of us who could not do the WOD as prescribed which encouraged beginners and older athletes. I can't understand why the scaling options are no longer shared with us and I'm very disappointed. It always felt like this wasn't simply for the elite athlete and now it does not. The fact that you refuse to offer any explanation doesn't help.