CFWUx1
4r +10 PUs

If you go back to 190113 the video that talks of causality vs observation gives similar le examples on that subject. 
I have never really took the time to realize that must study we read in regular media is based on observations. 

3+10 pull ups Rx'd

2019-02-25
2 rounds
+10 pull-ups (toes on floor)

남/48/20190219
8r (10-20-30)

5rds + 3 pull-ups Rx’d following Grace

I scaled pull-ups to banded pull-downs
4+69 reps

4R+2r. Ring pulls & fist pushes broken into 3 sets each. SQ as Rx.

4 rounds plus 5 strict pull-ups rxd 
Still have residual mucous from a cold I picked up last week but feeling a lot better today. Broke pull-ups 7-5-3 and pushups 10-8-6-4-2 first 2 rounds but then pull-ups went to 6-5-3-1 r3 and then 3-3-3-3-2-1, 1-4, pushups in 6s, 4s, and 2s after round 2 and all squats unbroken but not hurried. A couple sumo mandarins and matí© for fuel. 

4 rounds + 12 pull ups

Did 3x max pull ups and 3x max push-up and 45 squat
Pull up was 11-7
Push up 28-17
Squat all 45 unbroken

Is there a relationship with balance to find his load in order to have intensity in his training? or I'm wrong?

3 full rounds plus 30(15+15) rx

3 rds + 5 Pull ups Rx’d

I learned this in elementary school, apply it to the anatomy for training is great

7 round + 15 reps

4 rounds + 5 pull-ups

4 Rds + 7 reps 

4 rounds +9 pull ups 

5 plus 10 pull-ups 

RX - 4 + 15

4 rounds + 17 pushups

As rx’d, 5 rounds + 7 pull-ups.

Pull-ups mostly in sets of 5.  Push-ups in 7’s and 8’s.  Unbroken squats.  Was shooting for 4-minute rounds.

45m/5'10"/180

M/50/5’5”/155

4+15+30+15

420 reps 

L pull ups instead of strict 

4th round 5 push ups 

6 rds+5 pull-ups (kipping)

3+19 rx
289 reps

M/56/6'2"/179
RX'd - with strict form on all
4 rounds exactly.

3 rnds + 45

M/59/6’2”/230

Rx 4rds & 11 pull ups

3 rounds plus 17 reps

6 rounds as RX

5 Rounds plus 11 pull ups RX

Dr. Eades, I enjoyed your article. I never took statistics and was not trained in how to critically dissect a journal article, published paper, or a study. I simply took my premed classes, put my head down for the grind of medical school and residency, and trusted the "smart doctors" training me to tell me what was correct and what was incorrect. Therein lies the flaw. I have spent the last three years unlearning much of what I blindly took as the truth. CrossFit, and what is now CrossFit Health, initiated that journey and have been with me every step of the way. The greatest gift is that now my children understand the value of skepticism and careful interpretation of what we read and hear. 

CrossFit is the science of fitness, and now we explore the science of movement,better known as physics. Thank you.

5 rounds + 4 pull ups. Rx

Scaled
Complete as many rounds as possible in 20 minutes of:
10 strict pull-ups
20 push-ups
30 squats
4 rounds + 6 reps

490 reps 

5rds + 33 reps.

3 rds + 35 reps.  Thought I could get to 4 rounds, since the strict Cindy I got 13 rounds.  But my strict pull up endurance went out the window quickly

3 rds plus 55 reps

4+25 Rx

6 rounds Rx
m/50/67"/145

2 Rds. + 45

247/0114

4 rds Rx

6 rounds, 9 reps

7 rounds Rx’d 

3+53 RX

3 rounds plus 2 pull-ups Rx 

Rx
3 rounds + 15 pull-ups + 30 push-ups + 17 squats

M47/170
3 rnds, 10 pull-ups, 15 push-ups
10 pull-ups on rnd 4 due to a tear in right hand

2+23

5 rounds RX plus 15 strict pull ups and 20 push ups. Very cool to see development in these movements, and that’s part of the purpose of all these similar workouts with strict pull ups. We want to observe, measure, and repeat. We trade repetition for some variation temporarily, but my guess is that we all are becoming fitter for all this practice. Nice job, HQ!

4 rounds even rx with a 14lbs weight vest, female 29yrs

x4 rnds

rx

57 / 172

as rx'd

5 complete plus the pull-ups in the 6th.

3 rounds + 13 reps RX’d. 

3 rounds + 4 strict pull-ups
Done wearing 20-lb. ruck in preparation for GORUCK Light Challenge this Saturday

5’8” / 161 lb / 20 / M

Rx’d
7 rd and one bonus pull-up

5 rounds + 30 reps. First timer so I went with kipping pull-ups since I wasn’t sure how to scale until reading some comments. 

Still letting right elbow rest
15 left arm ring row
30 PU
45 air squats
4+62

all strict pull ups - push-ups to the floor - squats 10cm bottom from ground 3 rounds, i placed weights on the ground to make sure I'm all the way down. 

3RDS + 35reps
Modified pullups to chin-ups, kept them strict for the most part

AMRAP 20'
10 Ring rows (Belly buttom)
10/10 Landmine press (20kg)
30 Air squats 

Score= 7R+31

*Push ups on monday, triceps are sore! Change push ups for Landmine press! 
*Shoulder is pain free! Landmine press was grate before start pressing overhead!

2 rounds + 40 reps. RX

Rx 
4 RNDs, 15 pull-ups, 30 push-ups, 15 squats
M/38/5’10”/171

5 rounds + 8 pull-ups 
Rx

4 rounds plus 25 push-ups 

4rds + 13 reps

Didn’t trust the body with the fatigue.  Looks like the average was 4 rounds.
Scaled to 4 rounds for time:
15 ring rows 
30 knee push-ups
45 squats 
20:40

Got closer than I thought it’d be.  😁

12-24-36
5rds +5

5+1 Rx

Scaled: 
20 min AMRAP
10 strict pull ups
20 push ups
30 air squats
  completed 4 rounds and 10 push ups

4 plus 10 rx

2+44 rxd 

Did Cindy yesterday so:
4 Rds
10 flat bench,95#
10 KB Swing, 45#
15 Box Jump, 24"
150 Single Unders
11:07

3+45. I scaled it slightly and did the banded pull-ups. Overall felt great and accomplished! 

Drop in WOD at CrossFit ASAP H Street
50 Wallballs 20#
then
3 rounds of
20 DB snatch 50#
10 burpee box jump overs 24”
9:49

5 rounds,, 61 pull-ups,, 130 pushups,, 230 squats,, & I’m beat,, but happy :))

6 rounds.

I wonder if they have ever done a study on how CrossFit benefits recovering addicts. I am a recovering alcoholic and this program is a big reason why I’m sober today. It gives me something to focus on and offers a community of people of all backgrounds who are passionate about being healthy. Thanks for being awesome everyone! 

Visit dotcomscaled on instagram for scaling options

4 rounds + 9 Rx

Rx- 4 rounds + 1 pull-up

4 + 35 reps

5+14 RX 

5 Rds at 26th rep of Squats at Rx'd
M/47/166lbs/5'9"

Looking for ward to the rest of the material. 

4 rounds plus 5 pull-ups Rx'd.

Warmed up with 1/14/19

2 rounds + 31 squats.

Black/red bands.
Knee pushups.  Hands off deck.

RX: 3 complete rounds + 4th round to the 4th rep of squats

Scaling at its finest. Appreciate the illustrational work. I’m new to the Sport and am glad to see the behind the scenes prep.

Screwed up and thought this was a 15 min amrap. Stupid. Anyway, got 3+ 15 PU. Did the first 2 sets of pull-ups unbroken which I was pumped about. Scaled to above parallel box squats for my knee injury. 

3 + 29 Rx (188)

Today I subbed for something more terrible:
5x5 bodyweight deadlifts (165#)
Then, for time:
Push ups 2
Pull ups 1
Sit ups 3
Air squats 2 
Then increase again by 2, 1, 3 and 2 until you’re doing a final set of 20 push ups, 10 pull ups, 30 sit ups and 20 air squats. Then run a mile. 
I finished in 26:20.

4+32 RX

6 rds + 2 reps Rx
M-42-69-170#

“Annie” (WOD from 3 weeks ago)
 6:54 rx’d ish. Upon video review I had 49 DU round one and 41 on round 2! One or two trip ups. Unbroken unanchored butterfly sit-ups with normal abmat. 

Was trying to post this on 12/20/18, but site doesn't seem to be accepting comments, so I guess I'll post here.

Complete as many rounds as possible in 12 minutes of:
3 rope climbs, 15-ft. rope
20 box jumps, 30”

As rx’d, 5 rounds.

This was the WOD that came up the day my Dad died.  I’m considering using this as the memorial WOD for him, seeing as I can’t find any Hero WODs named “Pete”.  In any case, this was hard but not too bad.  Tried to push through the rope climbs each round — 3 is not that many.  Had wanted to do rebounding box jumps, but they are high enough that it felt awkward, and I am honestly a tad afraid of Achilles problems on high rebounding box jumps.  In most cases, I jumped down anyway, but in later rounds, I managed to find a rhythm of jumping up / stepping down.

45m/5'10"/180

M/42/5'4"/147lbs
As Rx'd
5 rounds plus 15 pull ups and 20 push ups

5 Rounds Rx

Triple Strict Cindy..........

9 rounds + 15 reps

RX
4 rounds+ 15 pull ups, 30 push ups and 2 squats
185M/6'3"/36

4 rounds, plus 23

5 rounds + 7 strict pull us. Rx

3+30
Scaled: single arm row(20)/banded push-ups 

Was super pressed for time. Decided to go for 2 rounds, super strict, for time. 10:51. Arms are smoked. This is my 9th main site WOD in 15 days. January 1st was my first real workout in MONTHS. This is like getting thrown in a fire but embracing the burn.

I almost finished the 5th round. I also had to move to assisted pull ups and pushups toreares the end. Was a foot workout to set as a baseline 

4+18 rx’d 

4 rounds + 15 pullups + 30 push ups. Pull ups scaling

M/44yo/5'8/#202
Rx_4+36

4 + 32 Rx 

4 Rounds
M/ 82kg/ 1,80m

4+1 pull-up. Tough 

3 Rounds completed (purple band pull-up assist).  On an additional note, I found a stellar timer for CF called SmartWOD.  It allows you to sleep your countdown time, logs laps/rounds with the timer and logs your full workout. It also has to timer/amrap/emom/tabata options.  Free in the Google Play store. 

3 rds: banded strick pull ups 

6 RDS + 45 Rx 20:58

3 rounds + 12 squats 

In order to prove causation, correlation is necessary but not sufficient. You also need a plausible mechanism based on accepted scientific principles. In the absence of a plausible mechanism, ice cream consumption definitely causes sunburn.

In order to take drastic actions like condemning entire food groups such as red meat, we should demand not just a "feel-good" explanation of a mechanism, but proof that every step claimed to take place, actually does. And the latter is where the lipid hypothesis has fallen short time and again. 

And maybe it's just me, but lines of thinking that rely on the absence of self-regulating mechanisms, (like calorie-counting as the only way to stay lean; do you really think your body doesn't regulate weight...?) or discount what humans evolved to do and eat (do you really think that survival does not depend on health?), can never make sense. So I'll stick with lifting heavy, constantly varied movement, little or no sugar and enjoy my steak. And when a doc prescribes statins, I'll change doctors.

4R + 15 pulls ups + 9 push-ups RX

5R + 17. Rx  

 Dr. George Mann was a co-director of the Framingham study and was involved early on to develop a nutritional survey to evaluate the effect of diet on cholesterol. His extensive analysis of the results completed by 1960 was never published, probably because it found that participants had widely varying cholesterol levels and that "something explains this inter individual variation, but it is not diet." William Kannel, Director of the Framingham study from 1966 to 1979, never referred to this, and Ancel Keys, a strong proponent of a low-fat diet who was referred to in the media as "Mr. Cholesterol", was featured on the cover of the January 13, 1961 issue of Time magazine. As one leading authority triumphantly proclaimed, "No other variable in the mode of life beside the fat calories in the diet is known which shows such a constant relationship to the mortality rate from coronary or degenerative heart disease". 

Unfortunately, the Framingham study has had more of an impact on CHD research than any other epidemiological study.  A review of the 10 greatest advances in cardiology in the last century listed Framingham in second place with "Lipid Hypotheses" and Atherosclerosis in third. The reason for this is that it allegedly provided the first "solid evidence" that people with a high cholesterol were more likely to have a heart attack and that smoking and hypertension also increased risk.  William Kannel, Director of the Framingham study during the 1960’s, told the press that the Framingham results essentially proved that cholesterol was a powerful predictor of CHD.  However, this was not supported by data showing that half of heart attacks occurred in people with normal or low cholesterol.  A direct association was later reported between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years of the study and increased mortality rates over the following 18 years.  A 30-year follow-up study in 1987 stated, "The most important overall finding is the emergence of the total cholesterol as a risk factor of CHD in the elderly".  No data were presented to support this erroneous claim.   Indeed, for men above the age of 47, those with low cholesterol had mortality rates greater than those with high cholesterol.  In addition, those whose cholesterol had decreased spontaneously over 30 years were at greater risk of dying from heart disease than those whose cholesterol had increased.  "For each 1% mg. drop in cholesterol there was an 11% increase in coronary and total mortality.

Although the study found that a drop in cholesterol was associated with increased coronary deaths, it was cited as supporting the cholesterol-CHD link in The Cholesterol Facts, a subsequent joint American Heart Association-NIH publication, which  stated that “The results of the Framingham study indicate that a 1% reduction in cholesterol corresponds to a 2% reduction in CHD risk The real truth about diet and cholesterol came out in a 1992 Archives Of Internal Medicine article stating that, "in Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol". The author was William Castelli, Director of the Framingham study at the time. 

4 rounds ended up doing knee pushups on last round. 

5 rds + 12 pull-ups

5 rounds + 5 pullups

4 rounds + 10 strict PU RX

4 + 10 Rx 

4 Rounds + 5 pull ups RX 
F/5’5”/29/145

3 rounds + 15 push ups. (Scale to kip pull ups ) 

Interesting article! Experienced researchers should not argue that correlation=causation. You will find that researchers are often careful to use any causal language since as you point out, most findings from any study lead us to a hypothesis not a concrete outcome. Yet, to understand how various behaviors affect our health in the long run, it is challenging to avoid using observational studies. The funding and follow-up necessary to complete a 30 year long RCT is usually just not feasible. Before you hold RCT's as the gold standard, keep in mind that even within RCT's it is often very difficult to make sure that everyone is getting the exact same dose of an intervention. CrossFit Health readers may enjoy reading qualitative research studies as they tell individual stories that once again, provide us with pieces of a puzzle that may someday add up to optimal health outcomes. Qualitative studies can also oftentimes give us insight into what is truly happening to people in various arms of a randomized controlled trial vs. what is supposed to be happening given their study arm assignment.

It is more than fair that CrossFit is questioning research methodologies and academic journal publications, but as part of the CrossFit Health scale-up, I'd urge you to also take a look at the medical education system as a whole. If we can interrupt the cycle of standard practices that are not backed by research and/or not working to improve health, we can have better outcomes here in the US. 

This workout put it ON me! I didn't intend to have this goal coming into 2019, but I'm loving this programming and am committing to follow .com for the whole year. This stuff is amazing. I've done 10/12 of these wods so far this year but this is my first commenting. I'm IN! 

M/5'10"/33/190

5 Rounds + 2 Pull Ups 

*Stuck to overhand on all pull ups even though I desperately wanted to switch to underhand to keep moving. Legs long, toes pointed. Oof.

Really like this - so useful to have the physics laid out - looking forward to the continuation of this series.

Rx 4rds 12pullups

5rd RX 17 YEARS OLD

completed as indicated....5 rounds + 3 Pull ups

Love the direction that CrossFit is taking.  Started in late 2008 and was initially taken by the fitness and sport.  My introduction was taught by Graham Holmberg as it happens.  As time has evolved, I'm fitter at 44 than was at 34 - and light years more educated as it relates to health.  Have a background myself in physiology, and a close family friend struggling with Type 2 diabetes, so this direction and refocus for content is invigorating to help others such as her.

I'm sure CF Health folks review a LOT of what is current and has been historically published, but I found this and those like it to be very interesting as it relates to helping those with diabetes.  Off the couch, off the carbs, so to speak.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29508274

Thanks Coach, for what you and CF are doing.

15 strict pull-ups (2-3 bands assistance)
30 honest push-ups (incline)
45 squats
4 Rounds + 5 pushups

Fiancí© Rx 4 Rounds + 7 pull-ups 

Rx 4 rounds on the nose

15 box jumps 24", 30 sit-ups, 45 squats -- 5 rounds + 15 BJ + 30 SU. (Absolutely staying off the shoulder.) Note last week for "strict Cindy" I subbed 10 GHDs whereas today I did 30 sit-ups, so it's not completely analogous; but last week I did around 400 reps (13+) and today 495. Then and now, I tried to be strict with range of motion and precision on every single rep.

Thanks Steve. 
I think I found it? The nutrition videos?

RX 5rds +9pu

me 4 rounds RX
coach michele 4+10 RX

Rx 4 rnds + 15 reps, M/48/6’1”/170lbs

I agree with Michael Eades; association is not the same as causation. As said by the philosopher Karl Popper, a medical hypothesis can never be proven, but it can be falsified, and the cholesterol hypothesis has been falsified again and again. Let me for instance point at the fact that more than a dozen studies have shown that people with low cholesterol become just as atherosclerotic as people with high cholesterol. It is also a fact that although cardiovascular disease is the commonest cause of death, elderly people with high LDL-cholesterol live the longest. Read our BMJOpen review of 19 studies where the authors have followed more than 68,000 elderly people after having measured their “bad” LDL-cholesterol. In most of them, those with the highest LDL-cholesterol lived the longest. No study found the opposite: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27292972  ).
This fact was documented already in the 30-year follow-up study from Framingham. Here the authors stated the following about those who had passed the age of 50: ‘For each 1 mg/dl drop in cholesterol per year, there was an eleven percent increase in coronary and total mortality’ (JAMA. 1987;257:2176-80). 

   The reason why high cholesterol is associated with heart disease in younger people is most likely that young and middle-aged people are more stressed than retired people, and stress is able to raise cholesterol by up to 40% and may cause heart disease by other mechanisms than by raising cholesterol.

     If high cholesterol was the cause of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, a high degree of cholesterol-lowering should of course be more beneficial than a low-degree lowering, but this is not the case; read our recent paper in Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391?needAccess=true . Here we have also shown that there are many more falsifications of the cholesterol hypothesis.

     As an argument against Michael Eades´ view, Stanley Nasraway mentions that he and his wife have been tremendously financially prosperous at selling books and services on nutrition to the lay public. I doubt that they have earned much money this way. I myself have published three books about the cholesterol scandal; some of them in ten different languages. However, most of the publishers pay very little or nothing at all. For instance, Amazon, who is selling them all over the world, rarely pays me more than €30-40 per month. Those who become prosperous are those who support the cholesterol campaign, but they are clever to hide it. Recently, the American Heart Association published new guidelines for prevention of cardiovascular disease: https://www.semda.org/wp-content/media/New-2018-Lipid-Management-Guidelines.pdf  . According to a large table on pages 71-73, none of the authors have any financial conflicts. However, beneath the table you can read the following:

     The table does not necessarily reflect relationships with industry at the time of publication. A person is deemed to have a significant interest in a business if the interest represents ownership of ≥5% of the voting stock or share of the business entity, or ownership of ≥$5,000 of the fair market value of the business entity; or if funds received by the person from the business entity exceed 5% of the person’s gross income for the previous year. 

     May I suggest that Nasraway read my homepage: www.ravnskov.nu or my first book, The Cholesterol Myths (It is freely available in English from Smashwords: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/486704). To learn more about the criminal ways used by the drug industry and their well-paid supporters, I suggest a reading of my book Ignore the Awkward. How the Cholesterol Myths Are Kept Alive.

5 Rds + 3 pull-ups Rx

My grace time was 17:20 using the weight they posted 135 lbs 

I started CrossFit the beginning of the year. I also started the paleo diet. Not super strict but %95 paleo. My question is how many calories, fat, carb, protein should I be consuming in a day? I’m 5’7” and I weigh 158 lbs. I’d like to stay at that weight. Loose a little fat and gain muscle obviously. Thanks. I’ll post my time for the word later. 

6R+22push up

Regarding the idea that observational studies can't prove causality, this is not correct, and is also an instance of the sort of crude over-simplification that I think the author would want to resist. 

First things first - you can't really "prove" causality; it's an inductive inference.

Secondly, it's an over-simplification; observational studies CAN "prove" (= render probable enough to care seriously about) causality, it's just rare, and you usually need many of them, all triangulating on the same conclusion.

A better statement might be: observational studies always suffer from the risk of residual confounding, and it is very rare that a single study can be considered decisive for a causal conclusion.

Randomised controlled trials can likewise suffer from residual confounding, and suffer a number of problems of their own, one of which is the excessive faith placed in the protocol, which in reality is often breached. (The best piece of evidence for this is that it's much more common for a trial funded by a body with a vested interest in an outcome, such as a pharmaceutical, to find a positive result, than if it's done by an independent.)

Note also that the evidence for smoking causing lung cancer was all observational until very recently (long after everyone accepted that smoking causes lung cancer). The triangulation of results between many different studies, with different designs, performed by different investigators in different places on different subjects etc., can establish causality with sufficient certainty to legislate extensively and sue tobacco companies. See Austin Bradford Hill's legendary 1965 paper, "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?"

BUT most importantly for Crosstif - I don't think I exaggerate if I say that all the evidence for Crossfit is from observational studies. This is true for any exercise programme and is the curse of sports science generally. It's impossible to implement blinding protocols for an exercise programme.

Thus I think the CrossFit endorsement of a stance against all observational studies is self-defeating. Strong, clear statements are great, but they're not always true, and unfortunately the truth is sometimes complicated - as indeed is the argument of this piece in relation to Framingham.

Thanks for the provocation and stimulation!

M/24/6'/160

4 Rounds

I think Sevan's comment on the Greg Amundson podcast is appropriate here.  Often, when people don't understand something their first reaction is to attack it. What we don't know or see (yet) is a more complete view of CrossFit's grander vision.  We get a little bit more each day.

The conversations being had in these comments section are healthy and natural.  Ultimately, it comes down to your Faith in CrossFit.  For me personally, they have built up more than enough over the years that I believe it is a step in the right direction.  Thank you, CrossFit.  I am excited for the journey forward.

Muscle fatigue will certainly slow people down on these workouts and lower their intensity level.  In some cases that is the intent, like this workout with 15 strict pull-ups becoming challenging for almost all athletes.  If your strict pull-ups improve, so will your kipping/butterfly.  If someone is looking for a conditioning burn on days like today, you can always pull a max effort 500m or 1000m row / bike / run.

4 + 45 RX

I hung with this article for a while, but the conclusion was a little far reaching. There does have to be more evidence then just making an observation. There needs to be data, tests and other correlations.

I understand where he wanted to go with this article, but it didn't quite get there.

Great Article! This is an effective way to understand movements using science and engineering. Excellent!

All, 

I edited Stanley Nasraway's post and I’m reposting it. 

First I edited for a string of straight-up factual errors all of the same genus. Everywhere he falsely claims FHS demonstrated that X increases Y, claiming a causal relationship, instead of an increase in X was associated with an increase in Y, claiming only a correlation, I struck through red and then deleted. 

Next, I edited for the Ad Hominem attacks. Stanley does a LOT of ducking. Some of it was spurious insult and ad hominem. All that shit I struckthrough yellow and then deleted. 

You can’t come in here and use as presumptive evidence the very fault in logic that the author was pointing out and sandwich that crap with ad hominem attack and insult.  

Look, everyone, at what’s left when you take away the crap? Still crap, but less of it. It turns out Stanley has absolutely nothing to contribute to the conversation. In, fact, Stanley/Mary are here only to stop the conversation. They won’t last long. 

This is what an industry troll looks like:

STANLEY NASRAWAYJanuary 14th, 2019 at 6:16 pm

I wondered where he was going when he states "the study that has been most damaging to the health of the U.S. population".  The FHS is an incredible longitudinal study that has enriched our knowledge and pointed organized medicine in many very important directions.  Its findings include: 

1970s
In women who are postmenopausal, risk of heart disease is increased, compared with women who are premenopausal. 
1980s
No empirical evidence found to confirm the rumor that filtered cigarettes lower risk of heart disease as opposed to non-filters.
1990s
Elevated blood pressure can progress to heart failure. Framingham Risk Score is published, and correctly predicts 10-year risk of future coronary heart disease (CHD) events. At 40 years of age, the lifetime risk for CHD is 50% for men and 33% for women.
2000s (high normal blood pressure is called prehypertension in medicine; it is defined as a systolic pressure of 120—139 mm Hg and/or a diastolic pressure of 80—89 mm Hg). Lifetime risk of developing elevated blood pressure is 90%. Obesity is a risk factor for heart failure.

By pointing to smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, it has had an astonishing impact on the reduced mortality we see today from heart disease and stroke.  Statins, which decrease hyperlipidemia, have been proven by randomized controlled studies to decrease heart attacks and stroke, and to extend lifespan.

I know I can't do pull-ups for 20 min straight. So here two beginner scales I did:

1: Last friday did Cindy, scaled with rest:
20 min AMRAP
5 pull-ups
10 push-ups
15 squats
2 min rest
= 7 rounds

2: Today I took the bitter and emasculating pill of scaling with progressions:
20 min AMRAP
15 horizontal pulls
30 elevated push-ups
45 supported squats
= 8 rounds, with NO break and NO rest
(all 3 supported on the same bar at belly-level, NO time lost due to move from one exercise to another) 

With both workouts I'm really, really happy. I couldn't have done any more. To me this is more important than going all out in the first 10 min and then have to stop.

5 + 59 Rx M/26/182#/5ft11in

amrap 20 min
15 strict ring pull ups using a minor false grip(to help with muscle ups)
30 push ups
45 squats
3 rnds plus 15 pull ups/20 push ups
then worked on L-sits and back extentions--
m/48/175

3 rounds + 15. For pull ups, scaled to 3 strict pronated pull ups attempts + 12 slow pull up negatives. Honest push ups, R1=17+13, R2=14+6+7+3. R3=14+8+8. Squats Rx. I got close to my first legit strict pronated pull up, but not quite there yet.

2 rounds and 25 reps
- banded pull ups
- beginner

Virtuosity: doing the common uncommonly well!
If you guys want to be better at anything, take it back to and master the fundamentals of the movement. Amazing things will happen!! Keep up the great work CrossFit!

2 rounds in 9:48

4 rounds + 6 reps RX

M/44/6”5/#238

3 rnds + 60 reps

I knew this was going to be a long 20 minutes for me so I tried breaking up the pull ups for (5x3) or (3x5) and then for the push ups I did (6x5) or (10x3) which helped me out a lot mentally...

I did banded pull ups and RX Push Ups! 

Where Michael Eades and I will disagree, in degree, is that I believe correlation can prove causation, if the correlation is strong enough. I think it beyond reasonable doubt that smoking causing lung cancer. There have never been any controlled studies in this area - not will there ever be. However, if memory serves, smokers are seventeen times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers. At this level of correlation we have effectively proven causation.

I have discussed this issue with many statisticians and epidemiologists. Some say that if risk is more than doubled, causation can be accepted. Others say you need the risk to be increased by 5 - 6 fold to accept causation. So, the rules are not hard and fast.

On the other hand if the risk is less than double, you can basically ignore any observational study. I don't think I have seen a single dietary study where risk gets anywhere near doubled. When it comes to cholesterol we are looking at 1.16, and suchlike. This would be laughable, were it not so serious.

For those who say that the statin trials have proven the cholesterol hypothesis, I would say, please review the data with an open mind.  For example, evacetrapib (designed to raised HDL and lower LDL) lowered LDL 37%, raised HDL 120% and had no impact on CVD. The benefits of statins are almost certainly due to non-lipid effects.

If the Framingham Study had shown anywhere near a doubling of CVD risk with raised cholesterol it could be considered interesting, but it never did. The only finding that blew the doors of was that, if participants cholesterol levels fell during the first fourteen years of the study, the rate of CVD death increased dramatically during the next eighteen years.

'There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first fourteen years [of the study] and mortality over the following 18 years (11% overall and 14% CVD death rate increase per 1mg/dl per year drom on cholesterol levels). Journal of the American Medical Association, 24 April 1987, pages 2176 to 2180.'

If cholesterol fell 18%, the risk of death increased by 420% and the risk of CVD death by 546%. So, yes, the Framingham study can tell us some things.

M/44/6'2"/185

Rx'd 
4 rds + 2 pullups 

5rds + 30 reps @RX

"Stick to the basics and when you feel you've mastered them, it's time to start all over again, begin a new, again with the basics, this time paying closer attention." 

老爷子曾说过如果重写CrossFit的教案，他想要改变的其中一个元素就是多鼓励使用严格静力的引体向上而不是现在多为提倡的借力引体。我个人非常欣喜的看到新官网能够带入这些改变。

不会有太多人喜欢做严格引体。为什么？因为难，不擅长。但这正是通过CrossFit锤炼自己的价值。不断补齐弱点，方可为生活中不可预期的挑战做好准备。

“我们”（CrossFit）不取悦任何人。放出卫星信号后，天外来客自会来访。

i could only manage  5 rounds , is it bad? 

I am learning to scale these wods to my current level, but would still like some help occasionally.
My only critique of the new format is it seems to have gone corporate over community, which is a shame. 

4 RDS + 13 reps RX

Scaled
15 Honest Push ups
10 Ring Face Pulls
35 Air squats

4 Rounds +18 reps

There have been pulls, push ups and squats in every block of 3 since the new year. Surely this will change going forward?

4 RDS + 27 reps! 

Dr. Eades presents an introduction to the Framingham study that explicates the difference between causation and correlation. He asserts that Framingham is an observational study, which limits its findings to the realm of correlation, not causation. Do you take issue with Dr. Eades’ central assertion? Are you asserting that causation can be proven through observational studies? It would be helpful if you engaged the argument instead of attacking the messenger, which is the least useful and lowliest form of comment, as you well know. 

5+13RX

Perhaps I missed it, but did Coach or HQ post something early in the year about the new (or should I say back to the future) philosophical approach to programming?  Now I know Coach might say this is nothing new, which is true, but it is a return to origins, and away from a programming bias over the past 2-3 years.  This programming is focused more on overall fitness and health (all 10 aspects of fitness) and less on power and strength.  I find the new approach fascinating and refreshing, and think a paper might address all the comments.  Now it might just say "go read 'What is Fitness?' again, but it'd still be useful.

Seems a bit unkind to take a gift then criticize it’s not quite to your caliber.  The way I see it, it’s their site and we’re invited guests.  I don’t agree with all the HQs opinions but I take what speaks to me and leave the rest, all with gratitude.

I searched Dr. Eades and see that he and his wife have been tremendously financially prosperous at selling books and services on nutrition to the lay public.  A PubMed search shows he has never published any research or scholarly article in a recognized medical journal.  Knocking the status quo is self-serving and self-congratulatory, similar to celebrity pumpers like Drs. Oz or Mercola.  I wondered where he was going when he states "the study that has been most damaging to the health of the U.S. population".  The FHS is an incredible longitudinal study that has enriched our knowledge and pointed organized medicine in many very important directions.  Its findings include: 
1960s
Cigarette smoking increases risk of heart disease. Increased cholesterol and elevated blood pressure increase risk of heart disease. Exercise decreases risk of heart disease, and obesity increases it.
1970s
Elevated blood pressure increases risk of stroke. In women who are postmenopausal, risk of heart disease is increased, compared with women who are premenopausal. Psychosocial factors affect risk of heart disease.
1980s
High levels of HDL cholesterol reduce risk of heart disease. No empirical evidence found to confirm the rumor that filtered cigarettes lower risk of heart disease as opposed to non-filters.
1990s
Having an enlarged left ventricle of the heart (left ventricular hypertrophy) increases risk of stroke. Elevated blood pressure can progress to heart failure. Framingham Risk Score is published, and correctly predicts 10-year risk of future coronary heart disease (CHD) events. At 40 years of age, the lifetime risk for CHD is 50% for men and 33% for women.
2000s
So called "high normal blood pressure" increases risk of cardiovascular disease (high normal blood pressure is called prehypertension in medicine; it is defined as a systolic pressure of 120—139 mm Hg and/or a diastolic pressure of 80—89 mm Hg). Lifetime risk of developing elevated blood pressure is 90%. Obesity is a risk factor for heart failure.

By pointing to smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, it has had an astonishing impact on the reduced mortality we see today from heart disease and stroke.  Statins, which decrease hyperlipidemia, have been proven by randomized controlled studies to decrease heart attacks and stroke, and to extend lifespan.

I provide this post simply for balance and perspective, and to identify HYPE when we read it.  Crossfit Health unfortunately doesn't provide the reader this perspective, or any characterization of the author, for that matter.  That is an unfortunate oversight.  It would be intriguing to know if CF recruited this 2 part piece from Dr. Eades, or if Dr. Eades contacted them and volunteered it. Just curious.

Dang, Coach really wants us to get our strict pull-ups down!

Champions Club Scaling Notes

STIMULUS: All right, here we go! Days like this make me both hate and love that I follow the main site. Hate because Mr. Carey is going to be like, “Chris, we have done pull-ups every single workout since the new year.” And love because Mr. Carey still can’t do a strict pull-up and needs the work. Unlike Cindy (even a strict Cindy for stud CrossFitters), this one seems designed to  have muscle fatigue be a limiting factor. So if at all possible, I’d try to keep the pull-ups strict and push-ups honest. I’d just use “Ricky Reps.” First thought is AMRAP in 20 minutes of: max reps strict pull-up (or bar hang, or whatever, just use rings as last resort), max reps push-ups (slow descent), and 45 squats. Then modify based on if it just becomes 45 squats over and over; so you could do max sets of pull-ups in 3 sets, or max set of push-ups in 2 sets, etc. Even record highest and lowest totals to comments.

GROUP: Having enough room on the pull-up bar would probably be the only limiting factor here, so since it’s not as fast-paced as Cindy (and not a benchmark), it should be cool to have someone move to push-ups after squats then just to the bar when it’s clear. Or try stations: 30-sec strict pull-ups, 30-sec. push-ups, 1:00 squats. Group 1 = pull-up/push-up (switching spots after 30 seconds), Group 2 = squat, then rotate after the minute.

INJURY: If the shoulders or hips are down, I would look at something that would fatigue the midline. Hollow holds, sit-ups, tuck-ups, or v-ups could be good subs.

I’M SCALING THIS WELL IF: I feel a good mix of muscle fatigue and general conditioning/breathing heavy.

I’M SCALING THIS POORLY IF: I don’t do all 45 squats in a row. I honestly think high-rep air squats is a serious missing piece in every single sport I coach outside of CrossFit.

GENERAL FEAR LEVEL (1=REST DAY, 10=PR-DRIVEN FGB): 6. Not the pressure Cindy can put on you, (or even Chelsea), but sets of 45 squats are going to be fun for the legs.

GENERAL EMASCULATING LEVEL (1=WHO DOES RING HSPU ANYWAY?, 10=THIS TEENAGE GIRL IS DEADLIFTING MORE THAN ME): 4. Strict pull-ups and push-ups die out in everyone.