May 20, 2006

Saturday 060520

Rest Day

greg-chuck-th.jpg

Enlarge image

Greg Amundson and Chuck Liddell at John Hackleman's Pit.


Lactic Acid is Not Muscle's Foe, It's Fuel.

We couldn't help but laugh at this NY Times story. We thought it might be better headlined: "Scientists narrow 86 year gap with coaching practices.", or "Dangerous fitness cult supported by scientific discovery."

Post thoughts and alternative headlines to comments.

Posted by lauren at May 20, 2006 5:45 PM
Comments

so how long did it last?

Comment #1 - Posted by: gbass at May 19, 2006 6:37 PM

I have never seen that look in Greg's eyes. Not after the worst WOD. Impressive. My hats off to you Greg...In the ring with a leg...

Comment #2 - Posted by: brent at May 19, 2006 6:42 PM

leg= legend. Syntax for those non....um..

Comment #3 - Posted by: brent at May 19, 2006 6:44 PM

Coach-
First congrats on the academic acceptance!
Thought I would use rest day to ask a question. I am a 43 year old ex-college basketball player, 6'3" 210 who has been CrossFitting since December-. Love it am as lean strong and functional as anytime since my 20s
About 2 months ago I subluxed my shoulder joint playing ball. Dr has suggested operation- which I will avoid- and given my a cortisone shot which helped for awhile.
While clearing me to train, he has outlawed overhead lifting- including thrusters, C&J, push presses etc saying that it will aggravate the joint.
You buying that? If so, how do I adjust WODs to avoid overhead lifts? If not, what other suggestions on rehab do you have for me?
Thanks for this advice, everything you do for free on CrossFit and the thought provoking rest day posts- even when I don't wholly agree!
Thanks
Chris

Comment #4 - Posted by: Chris at May 19, 2006 6:57 PM

For those of you who don't read Asian characters, the tatoo on Chuck's head says:

"The Surgeon General has determined that messing with this dude can be hazardous to your health."

Comment #5 - Posted by: Brendan Smith at May 19, 2006 7:00 PM

Great article. Science is amazing. Just imagine what we will know in the next 100 years. I am amazed at how the lactic acid theory is still so prevalent in today’s sports, especially the idea that it is the cause for sore muscles.

Comment #6 - Posted by: Kevin at May 19, 2006 7:09 PM

Chris #5,
I suggest taking the question over to the message board, for a better response.

Comment #7 - Posted by: Andy Shirley at May 19, 2006 7:33 PM

Gotta wonder if Chuck tried Fran against Greg afterwards????

Comment #8 - Posted by: beth at May 19, 2006 8:15 PM

Chuck looks scared


(just kidding, please don't punch me Chuck)


Comment #9 - Posted by: Murph at May 19, 2006 8:15 PM

Even the name "Chuck" scares me: Chuck Norris, Chuck Liddell, Chuckie from "Child's Play"...

Ah, I remember when the belief that lactic acid was bad was common sense... like not squatting past 90 degrees for safety, slow isolated movements for strength, and and global climate change being a myth...

Hey, it's a rest day! I can stir up trouble, can't I?

Comment #10 - Posted by: Patrick at May 19, 2006 9:07 PM

After this article my question is what happens chemically to make muscles tired? If not lactic acid then what? You can't circumvent scientific method, as this article does, without giving a proper explanation for why muscles do get tired.

Comment #11 - Posted by: Mr. White at May 19, 2006 9:14 PM

This article demonstrates, again, the importance of reading the original papers. The infomartion on lactic acid has been around for decades. A similar example is the formula predicting how maximum heart rate changes with age: 220 - age = Max heart rate. The following link to a 2001 NY Times article shows why this formula is in error and is another example of how a widely held "truth" is not:
similarhttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04EFDD1F30F937A15757C0A9679C8B63

It is unfortunate that in the October 2002 CrossFit Journal the following statement is made: "..it warants menntion that we are not attempting to demonstrate our program's legitimacy through scientific principles."

If the principles of CrossFit lead to superior fitness, then it must be scientifically demonstrable. Relying on anecdotes is not scientific and leads to dueling anecdotes.

I would urge CrossFit to begin a serious research effort to demonstrate the validity of it's methods. I would be glad to participate in any such effort as I'm sure many others crossfiters would be as well.

Comment #12 - Posted by: Ken Davis at May 19, 2006 9:17 PM

They don't rely on ancedotes Ken. They rely on results. Sports science is a joke. Same with nutrional science. Find what works and do that. No need to go into a lab to prove why it works. You know it works by looking at your stop watch and the weight on the barbell.

Comment #13 - Posted by: FATSO at May 19, 2006 9:40 PM

bw200
44yr
45min run

Comment #14 - Posted by: Rick A at May 19, 2006 9:46 PM

I thought of this article while doing the WOD today. "Hurts so good!" I just kept telling myself that. That, and the other phrase I've seen on the boards... something like "Pain is just weakness leaving your body." Love it.

Comment #15 - Posted by: Brooke at May 19, 2006 10:19 PM

Please leave out the fitness links. I come here for the politics.

Comment #16 - Posted by: John Seiler at May 19, 2006 10:27 PM

Amen FATSO.

Science is nice, and it's good to have your opinions and theories validated. But when you know, deep down, that you're right and what you're doing is the correct way to do it...proving it takes a backseat to living it.

There's a certain elegance in allowing the naysayers their potshots while you just go out and get the job done.

Comment #17 - Posted by: Matt G. at May 19, 2006 10:32 PM

John, you're killing me...

Comment #18 - Posted by: Matt G. at May 19, 2006 10:33 PM

Ken (#12): You've pretty well ensured that Dr. Rocket will be by to offer a refresher on what is science.

Comment #19 - Posted by: Brian Mulvaney at May 19, 2006 10:39 PM

That's just Chuck givin Greg a hug, right? That Chuck Liddell... nothin but a teddy bear

Comment #20 - Posted by: Bradford at May 19, 2006 10:42 PM

'I would urge CrossFit to begin a serious research effort to demonstrate the validity of it's methods.'

Why? Do most of us care about a scientific explanation of CrossFit's methodology? Our's is the black box model.

Get some, go again.

Comment #21 - Posted by: RossB at May 19, 2006 11:09 PM

Ken, you say: "If the principles of CrossFit lead to superior fitness, then it must be scientifically demonstrable. Relying on anecdotes is not scientific and leads to dueling anecdotes."

I don't think I'm alone around here relying on my own fitness experience as testament to Crossfit's efficacy. I have never looked to Crossfit to justify its program based on anecdotes.

Seen in that light, the statement in the journal is not unfortunate, it simply demonstrates a results orientated approach. While not scientific in an academic sense, it is no less legitimate.

Comment #22 - Posted by: Matt Townsend at May 19, 2006 11:09 PM

The most impressive part of that picture is that Amundson lunged-lunged-thrustered-lunged there all the way from Santa Cruz.

-D.

Comment #23 - Posted by: Dan Silver at May 20, 2006 2:28 AM

I don't think pain is weakness leaving the body. Pain is pain. And it means that you are doing something that is not supposed to be done. If a runner tells himself that the pain in his shins is just pain leaving his body and keeps on going, he's just going to mess himself up in the long run and have some really nasty shin splints. I know it's a motivational quote, but I think it's a silly one. If something hurts, I stop. If I'm just tired, then I tell myself to quit being a lazy @**, or to not be a punk. Those are much more motivational.

Comment #24 - Posted by: jim at May 20, 2006 2:55 AM

so the soreness is just caused by the damage we do to our muscles as we use them and break them down, not from the "lactic acid buildup". it almost makes you feel stupid of believing in the old theory doesn't it.

Comment #25 - Posted by: Travis L @ prosperity at May 20, 2006 3:00 AM

Alt headline- "Scientists Make New Discovery, Begin Bouts of Short Duriation High Intensity Exercise En Masse"

I don't need a scientific study to tell me CrossFit works. I can look at any of my scores over the past 6 months and compare them as I've gone along. That and how I feel and perform at work tells me everything I need to know.

At one point, science also told me smoking wasn't bad for me and if I wrapped a vibrating belt around my gut I'd lose weight. Sometimes the eggheads don't know it all; no substitute for busting you ass, evaluating, and then busting it some more.

Comment #26 - Posted by: rpo at May 20, 2006 3:01 AM

let's be realistic about the "pain is weakness leaving the body" mantra. it a catch-phrase to get you through a sticking point, not an excuse to cause possible permanent damage to yourself. it's the jedi mind trick that lets you push yourself a little bit further than last time. if you are experiencing a significant amount of pain and you don't stop and reevaluate what you are doing you probably deserve what is going to happen. most of us here are adults and are able to determine when we've pushed ourselves to the limits. if for some reason you cannot figure out that you should stop, maybe it's the darwinian theory at work. On that note this is not a post attempting to blast anyone in particular, i've found over time that people are not willing to take personal responsibility for their actions. you're the one exercising, if it hurts, stop; don't continue to exercise, hurt yourself, and then blame whoever said it might be a good idea to try this. have a nice day.

Comment #27 - Posted by: Travis L @ prosperity at May 20, 2006 4:20 AM

Ken's post at #12 and the article reminded me of a max HR test I took when I was 46. Using the 220-your age should have given me a max of 174 but i maxed out at 195. Inasmuch as I am not some athletic superfreak, I realized that there's a lot of baloney out there regarding fitness and training protocols, and the best method was personal trial and error, rather than blindly relying on so-called experts. The NYT article is yet another example of a training shibboleth demonstrated to be false when those of us sweating away in the gym already knew it to dead flat wrong. CF is the product of Coach's refusal to accept what others said was the "correct" way to train, and his construction of a system based on actual perceived results. I'm sure he could care less if the lab rats show up to prove he's right; he...and all of us...know what works. Thanks, Coach!

Comment #28 - Posted by: john wopat at May 20, 2006 4:46 AM

Remember Pukie's Dictionary definition?
"Lactic Acid=Pussy Rest Stop"

Now that would be a good title for the article.

Also interesting is the stuff about very intense warmups improving performance. A few months back CJ Stockel, International level O lifting coach, who attended the seminar last weekend, told me that when he coached track his sprinters' warm up included doing heavy squat singles under the grandstand a few minutes before the race, often to the gobsmacked amazement of opposing runners and coaches.

Comment #29 - Posted by: Dan MacD at May 20, 2006 4:51 AM

Patrick #10
Right now in Atlanta we are experiencing global cooling, so perhaps the dire predictions of a coming ice age that Newsweek warned of 20 years ago is coming to pass. Come to the cert seminar in Atlanta in August, I promise it won't be hot.
Great work with ASU rugby!

Comment #30 - Posted by: Dan MacD at May 20, 2006 5:01 AM

Mr. White,

Muscles do get tired due to lactic acid. I don't think the article is arguing this point. It is arguing the point that training only aerobically does not enhance the bodies ability to more readily utilize the lactic acid being produced for fuel. Thus the reason for anaerobic or lactic threshold training.

Comment #31 - Posted by: anthony at May 20, 2006 5:16 AM

anthony (#31)...re-read the article, particularly the last quarter of page 3, beginning with "The evidence has continued to mount".

Comment #32 - Posted by: Matt G. at May 20, 2006 5:40 AM

Great posts, all!

I enjoy reading the banter that goes back and forth, and being in the middle of it sometimes.

I will probably go to the message boards for this:

My squat is 405 lbs.

Yesterday, I could not do more than 115 lbs in the overhead squat because of the tension I had to keep in my shoulders and in my arms (which are sore today).

Any suggestions on improving the shoulder/wrist strength to up the OH squat?

Thanks to all who respond. Going to a funeral of a friend who succumbed to cancer.

Comment #33 - Posted by: Stuart R at May 20, 2006 5:43 AM

I always chuckle when a scientific expert tell us something, especially on the news. I still remember seeing a news brief about aids where a "scientist" was trying to calm us by saying the only way to get aids was through sall we say "alternative" intercourse or through blood exposure (such as sharing needles). He actually told the pubilc regular heterosexual sex would not be a route of transmission. There is such a list of scientifically "impossible things" such as giving proof that bumblebee flight was impossible due to the weight vs surface area of wings. Things like the nutritional guidelines for diabetics, food pyramid, treatment of disease by oh so many drugs instead of lifestyle changes, yada yada. Sound bite science would be funny if so many people didn't believe it.

Comment #34 - Posted by: craigv bwt 185 at May 20, 2006 5:55 AM

Mr White....

Muscles and your body for that matter fatigue due to the loss of "easy" energy stores. The easiest energy for your body to utilize is glycogen which is consumed rather quickly. Once this supply is exhausted then your body seeks alternative energy stores.....fat. When creating energy aerobically your body is very efficient making (If i remember correctly) 36 ATPs for each glucose molecule via the Kreb's cycleand the ETC. The byproducts of this pathway are carbon dioxide and water. When the body does not have an adequate supply of oxygen (anaerobic) the body creates energy in a much more inefficient way, creating 2 ATPs for each glucose molecule. The end result of this pathway is lactic acid. The article is correct in saying that lactic acid is quickly (in seconds) metabolized in the liver. In fact, when treating very ill patients we often check a lactic acid level to determine if there is ongoing ischemia somewhere in the body. If the lactic acid level is high we know that production is going on RIGHT NOW. The only exception to this rule is when someone does not have a functioning liver.
What I recall about muscle soreness is the actual destruction of muscle tissue and the loss of integrity of the sarcoplasmic reticulum in striated muscle. The SR is where the calcium stores are held in muscles and are what the muscle fibers need to contrat....along with ATP (the energy) This free calcium quickly binds with anions (mostly phosphates) this can form insoluable complexes in the muscles. This together with muscle breakdown causes inflammation and soreness.

Sorry for the boring lecture. Hope you like it even even if it's from a liberal!!!!!

Comment #35 - Posted by: SteveMD at May 20, 2006 6:03 AM

Mr White....

Muscles and your body for that matter fatigue due to the loss of "easy" energy stores. The easiest energy for your body to utilize is glycogen which is consumed rather quickly. Once this supply is exhausted then your body seeks alternative energy stores.....fat. When creating energy aerobically your body is very efficient making (If i remember correctly) 36 ATPs for each glucose molecule via the Kreb's cycleand the ETC. The byproducts of this pathway are carbon dioxide and water. When the body does not have an adequate supply of oxygen (anaerobic) the body creates energy in a much more inefficient way, creating 2 ATPs for each glucose molecule. The end result of this pathway is lactic acid. The article is correct in saying that lactic acid is quickly (in seconds) metabolized in the liver. In fact, when treating very ill patients we often check a lactic acid level to determine if there is ongoing ischemia somewhere in the body. If the lactic acid level is high we know that production is going on RIGHT NOW. The only exception to this rule is when someone does not have a functioning liver.
What I recall about muscle soreness is the actual destruction of muscle tissue and the loss of integrity of the sarcoplasmic reticulum in striated muscle. The SR is where the calcium stores are held in muscles and are what the muscle fibers need to contrat....along with ATP (the energy) This free calcium quickly binds with anions (mostly phosphates) this can form insoluable complexes in the muscles. This together with muscle breakdown causes inflammation and soreness.

Sorry for the boring lecture. Hope you like it even even if it's from a liberal!!!!!

Comment #36 - Posted by: SteveMD at May 20, 2006 6:03 AM

Regarding "Asian Characters" (Brendan #5), before ya'll imitate Mr. Liddel, you might want to read this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194732,00.html

Comment #37 - Posted by: Baruto at May 20, 2006 6:37 AM

WOD (Rest Day Yesterday)

34 min Single Track Mountain Biking (137 AHR)

6x5 OHS 135/135/155/175/185/195

Tough transition from pedaling to OHS. I can now bottom out on the squat portion and maintain the bar overhead. I think I finally have the hang of OHS.

Comment #38 - Posted by: Kegger at May 20, 2006 7:01 AM

Ha! This article cracked me up. Reminds me of the Woody Allen movie where he wakes up two hundred years in the future and the scientists tell him they've finally discovered that fat and steaks are healthy...and he's surprised that all his friends have died because they "all ate organic rice."

Really, though, it's frightening and sad how much "knowledge" rests on tenuous conclusions derived from false assumptions.

Solution: Question everything.

And have a good weekend, everyone!

Comment #39 - Posted by: bcf at May 20, 2006 7:07 AM

Have torn quadriceps tendon (partial) so not much leg work recently.
Did 21-16-9 of db curl to press, renegade rows, tri press ups and cable rotation rows, last two on ball. 24:30. Happy rest day.

Comment #40 - Posted by: groon at May 20, 2006 7:20 AM

Easy rest day. Light warm up and stretching, then an easy paced 2 miler w/ the Master Chief (my weimaraner). See you guys tomorrow.

Comment #41 - Posted by: HM1 at May 20, 2006 7:22 AM

John #16,

Too funny, I'm in stitches! Kinda strange not having "Turk" to beat up on during rest days...or anyone else with bizarre political affiliations, low self esteem issues, etc.

Comment #42 - Posted by: Matt Hunt at May 20, 2006 7:25 AM

Hi all,
Workout ALL WEIGHT IN KILOS
Lisa CJ 35x4, 45x2, 55x1, 62.5x1, 67.5x1, 72.5x1, 75x1 SW/Pull-upx4x5 (no kip).
Bdw. 62.
Jon CJ 50x4x2, 70x3, 85x2, 95x1, 102.5x1x2, 105x1 SW/Pull-up (Bdw.,+10 kilos, +20 kilos, and +30 kilos)x6 each set.
Bdw. 82.
Rest...

Comment #43 - Posted by: Jonathan Jensen at May 20, 2006 7:28 AM

Ahhh! A rest day--except a two-hour Kajukenbo workout and a house full of I-gotta's. It's fun to keep up with the comments--how did some of you folks get so damn smart?

Comment #44 - Posted by: peejay2 at May 20, 2006 7:35 AM

For fun,
OHSQ 65 kilosx20 (to parallel; in my Crocs). My shoulders fatigued for sure.

Comment #45 - Posted by: Jonathan Jensen at May 20, 2006 7:41 AM

Awesome article. Of course, we always knew what works. It just took those guys stuck in the 1920's 86 years to catch up. Dr. Gladden was one of my g/f's professors here at Auburn. He does research in lactic acid research (obviously).

WAR DAMN EAGLE!
-CrossFit Auburn

Comment #46 - Posted by: Matt Laney at May 20, 2006 8:36 AM

I agree with Ken#12 in that as this site is coming out of the underground and more into the mainstream there comes a certian degree of responsibility to scientifically support what we are all trying to do here. As Travis#27 said, it is fun to have inspiring little quotes to live and train by but there comes a point where you must be able to justify the methods behind your madness. I do not want to speak for anyone else but I would love to be able to give a well researched and educated response every time I am in the gym and I start getting the "that can't be healthy" or "What the F&*@ is wrong with you" statements that I am sure most of us get. In short we should all be able to come up with a better statement than "well it just works" or "it's really cool"

Comment #47 - Posted by: Dave at May 20, 2006 8:50 AM

dave,
how do you justify the black box theory, let the scientists figure out why crossfit works the way it does, let us make sure that they understand that it does work and it is not some elaborate hoax on coach's part. as long as we can prove time and again that crossfit works someone in the scientific community will pick up the banner and prove why, what's going on now is people trying to prove why it shouldn't work, they don't care that it does work, they just care that it shouldn't work and it flies in the face of the "accepted" way to work out. remember that at one time the earth was flat.

Comment #48 - Posted by: Travis L @ prosperity at May 20, 2006 8:55 AM

Travis,
Thanks for the feedback. And once again I agree. I think people are more apt to try to prove why it should not work. In an ideal situation I would be able to just not care and go about my business. The part I left out before was that I am in the fitness industry and and have always believed in "if it works use it." I am constantly trying to find new and better ways to maximize potential and I feel I have never found anything that compares to the results I have gotten from this site. But anything that drastically deviates from the norm I like to be able to explain to my peers that it is not all BS and why. I never want to claim to know everything nor do I want to make stuff up on the spot. Meant no disrespect with anything I said. Oh and I had to laugh because I actually used the "at one time the earth was flat" theory with a co worker. Always nice to find like minded people.

Keep Training Hard Eveyone.

And thanks Coach

Comment #49 - Posted by: Dave at May 20, 2006 9:31 AM

Matt and Matt (#'s 18 & 42),
I'm INCREDIBLY embarrassed. NOW, I get it. Coach is showing us the allegorical connection between fitness(Crossfit) and and economic systems (capitalism). Boy, do I feel silly. Sorry Coach!

Dan Silver (#26),
Thanks for the background. I'm assuming that's Greg's new ill-advised "Tabata Chuck" workout?

Patrick (#10),
RE: "Even the name "Chuck" scares me: Chuck Norris, Chuck Liddell, Chuckie from "Child's Play"..."
Don't forget Chuck WAGON. That little wagon running through the kitchen, getting chased by the dog, always creeped me out.

Comment #50 - Posted by: John Seiler at May 20, 2006 9:44 AM

Regarding the tattoo link:

The "tramp stamp"...LOL.

"Tattoo on the lower back? Might as well be a bullseye."

As someone who performed tattoo removals for a short time, my favorite was a young woman who wanted "Angelf&*k" removed from her left upper chest. As I'm working, she and her friend are talking about getting other tattoos. She also says that she liked the tattoo, it was just in too "obvious" a place, she would have kept it if it was located elsewhere. Good times...

Comment #51 - Posted by: Garrett Smith at May 20, 2006 9:56 AM

Thursday's workout

subbed 3 x 12 for dips and

did 105 lbs for sdhp best time for me yet and felt really good

7 min 10 sec

Comment #52 - Posted by: jody at May 20, 2006 9:57 AM

I'm a bit of a science geek, although I haven't cut up any frogs or fed radioactive lactate to rats...recently. It's nice to be able to explain things scientifically, but far from necessary in this case. My simplistic vision of this process includes stimulation of production of greater numbers of enzymes involved in utlizing lactate as fuel by more frequently exposing the body to high lactate levels during excercise. High lactate levels fire up translation and production of lactate-metabolizing enzymes. If high lactate levels are not reached during excercise, the body in it's wisdom stops producing large numbers of these enzymes as the existing ones degrade as all nice big molecules do over time, leaving the body less able to use lactate as fuel under anaerobic conditions. As Crossfitters, we are populating our energy production systems with lactate utilizing enzymes,so it's no surprise that Fran helps us run faster, we're not stuck with only aerobic energy production to get us from 'A to B'.

Is this explanation evidence-based?
Naw....but who cares?

It's fun to be getting faster and stronger in a more time-efficient manner, whether it makes sense scientifically or not...
and I enjoy it when I'm working out away from home and people look at me as if I'm a freak.

Once again, thanks to all involved in bringing CrossFit to those of us who are far away.

It's a pleasure to participate in.

Comment #53 - Posted by: Mark Sampson at May 20, 2006 10:03 AM

#13 "Sports science is a joke. Same with nutrional science. Find what works and do that."


This is a dangerous notion to perpetuate. Your claim to have no use for it does not render it useless. Ours is a relatively young science and is not often held in higher regard with established disciplines. However, there are a number of us who are involved in and who value the pursuit of understanding how sport, training, and nutrition "work". We stive for these goals through the same rigor and validation of any physicist or chemist.

The principles that drive the success of crossfit are not exlusive from science. As we know one of crossfit's strengths is its broad application of varying training stimuli, all of which will provoke a specific, respective physiological adaptation to allow for enhanced performance as the stimuli are repeated. This is one of the most basic premises of exercise science; repeated stimulus leads to enhanced ability to handle the stimulus.

These recent papers coming out in the literature by Brooks et al. are providing direct evidence of an adaptation (increased capacity for lactate metabolism) induced by repeated elevations in lactate levels. We're quite aware that high-intensity, anaerobic training à la crossfit elevates lactate production. Now we're beginning to understand how the body reacts to that stimulus by improving its ability to metabolize lactate into energy. Enhanced energy production leads to enhanced performance in training, better w.o.d. times, etc.

The idea that lactate is responsible for muscle soreness is partially correct. Acute elevations in lactate, in active muscle for example, cause a rapid change in local pH that is likely to stimulate chemoreceptors in the muscle. These are sensory nerves that are sensitive to these changes, and will fire more rapidly as a result. This is interpreted as a pain sensation that we would call a "burn", such as what you might feel in your hamstrings and glutes in the homestretch of a 400m sprint. But as described previously, our training enhances our ability to rapidly utilize lactate for energy production so that our "burn" isn't as strong or lengthy at a given exercise intensity.

This process is entirely different from delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), which is the soreness we feel days after training. Prolonged eccentric muscle contraction, where the muscle lengthens while still contracting (think of your quads during the down movement of a squat) cause DOMS to occur, not lactate accumulation. The eccentric contractions are very stressful on the integrity of the muscle cell. This may cause breakdowns in parts of the cell, where various metabolites are released into places where they don't belong. The process of repairing these breakdowns coincides with an inflammatory response, much like any wound or infection, which is responsibly for the soreness. This repair process can take some time, which is why DOMS often lasts for a couple of days or longer.

Sorry for the diatribe...hope to educate more than confuse.

Comment #54 - Posted by: domer at May 20, 2006 10:04 AM

All,
The piece doesn’t quite do justice to the story. Make no mistake about it; Dr. Brooks, et al. have apparently made a major contribution to our understanding of bioenergetics. This is a slightly better look at the science. http://www.physorg.com/news64680736.html

What I like about this piece is that it gives glimpse of how far our current understanding of molecular bioenergetics is from being able to provide effective prescription for improving human performance.

Exercise physiology is important. Keep at it guys. But you’re not ready for game day.

We’re not in the research business; we’re in the human performance business.

Ken,
You damned near have everything wrong like that guy in the FedEx commercial.

1. The information on lactic acid is brand spanking new and revolutionary.
2. The Karvonen formula has always been seen as a rough model and never a “truth” except for maybe aerobics instructors.
3. Thanks for the CFJ quote, but the misspellings are yours. The point is not that CrossFit can’t be researched scientifically it’s that the program was developed through trial and error (experimentation) not application of any known exercise physiology.
4. We’re not “relying” on anecdotes, science, or research. We’re relying on the quality of our prescription.
5. The research, studies, clinical trials, and analysis of CrossFit are being done by client and potential client governmental agencies and research and policy analysis agencies in their employ. The advantages financially and experimentally of our not “grading our own papers” is powerful.
6. My sense of the people here is that they see their results from doing CrossFit as better “validation of it’s (sic) methods” than could be obtained by participating in a “serious research effort”. I think that process of validation is going on all around you.

Comment #55 - Posted by: Coach at May 20, 2006 10:16 AM

Alternative Headline:

The New York Times Posts a Readable Article, For Once.


:-)

Comment #56 - Posted by: cjones at May 20, 2006 10:19 AM

There are numerous comments related to training results vs. scientific theory. Each and every one of us can testify to the results of our training from the crossfit medium. By which we can attribute these results from progressive coaching concepts and training techniques (Thanks Coach); but by no means should we discredit the importance of scientific validation to the practical application. The wealth of knowledge which will be gained from research will only further the success of the program, and even provide further insight to the coaching concepts and training techniques.

Comment #57 - Posted by: Danny T at May 20, 2006 10:21 AM

Headline:

Scientists Say "D'oh!" Yet Again...Will They Ever Get It Right?

Comment #58 - Posted by: Garrett Smith at May 20, 2006 10:31 AM

i had to laugh when on discovery today they are showing the episode of "the science behind lance armstrong." they were taking blood tests of a cyclist testing for lactic acid saying that too much lactic acid will cause his body to shut down. they also said lance's body "eliminates" lactic acid more efficiently than everyone else.

Comment #59 - Posted by: hooksy at May 20, 2006 10:38 AM

This is my science. I try new exercises, sets and reps. If they work and I like them, I keep them. If they don’t I throw them away. Domer, did you say that Thrusters and overhead squats are gonna make me start lactating??? If that’s the case I’m going to go back to a bodybuilding type of weight program.

Comment #60 - Posted by: tim.k at May 20, 2006 10:50 AM

A recent example of "dueling anecdotes" can be seen in the article posted on the 26 April 2006 rest day. Greg Bryzcki suggests in his article that crossfit is unsafe.

Many of the responses to the article said something to the affect of "My dad (CrossFit) is better than your dad." But maybe Mr Byrzcki is correct. Is the incidence of injury higher with CrossFit than other approaches? I don't believe it is known, but the incidence of injury could be measured and the question answered. CrossFit could attempt to answer this and other questions in a scientific way: measurement and not anecdotally.

In his article Mr. Bryzcki makes the statement:

"There’s nothing inherently wrong or dangerous with doing pull-ups. When done in a strict fashion, the pull-up is a very productive exercise for increasing the strength of the upper back, biceps and lower arms. But since this workout is to be completed in the shortest amount of time and is somewhat competitive, the emphasis is on doing the repetitions quickly not strictly.

CrossFit could start a study looking at improvement between a group that does pullups strictly following a prescribed form vs those that do the kipping pullups. Anyone who starts doing pullups will improve, but does the form make a difference? Measuring the two groups would answer the question.

Comment #61 - Posted by: Ken Davis at May 20, 2006 11:13 AM

CrossFits kipping pull-up is more powerful. Also using the kipping pull-up creates a longer ROM, and greater flexibilty, and finally the kipping pull-up maintains the intensity needed to improve fitness levels and performance as today article points out.

Any on that wants to kill "Fran" should switch to super strict pull-ups. If you evr need to truly use pull-ups in a real life situation such as slipping off a tree branch or ledge I can asure you isolating the lats and being strict will not enter your mind.

Finally if your most worried about appearance,ever witnessed the lats on most CrossFitters? You will notice incredible development, how'd they get that 'cheatin'?

Comment #62 - Posted by: dan colson at May 20, 2006 11:30 AM

We need to get Greg on "Pros versus Joes." Well, maybe not.

Comment #63 - Posted by: JohnM at May 20, 2006 11:54 AM

bw 160
46 yo
stairs 9 flights 4 sets.set 1&3 40lbs wt vest + 25lb plates in each hand,set 2&4 wt vest only.
pull ups & push ups 2x11.
walk up the stairs took my time.elevator down.

Comment #64 - Posted by: monty at May 20, 2006 12:00 PM

Ken Davis, #60

Brzycki (Matt, not Greg) pronounced CrossFit unfit for police work. What we saw in response was a flurry of elite gunfighters challenging the pronouncement with specifics. For me, that closes the case. I would be shocked if Matt were not embarrassed. He ought to be.

I think your characterization of the response is wide of fair, unless, of course, you think that the needs of a cop are better assessed by science than law enforcement personnel.

The safety of CrossFit has been measured and tested. Repeatedly, not by us, by others. We passed with flying colors. We’re safer than traditional Mil and LEO PT. A lot safer.

The difference between kipping and strict pull-ups is not one of form but technique. Matt would argue that kipping is bad form, bad form is dangerous, and therefore kipping pull-ups are dangerous.

Most who post on this site know enough to be shocked at Matt's spin. I'll leave it to them to defend the kipping pull-up.

I salute the diehard strict pull-up contingent. Their minions are responsible in noticeable part for our athletes’ supremacy in competition and sport. The margins of our dominance truly depend on their ignorance.

Ken, slow down on the theorizing and dig into the workouts. Eat right. Learn more about the community. A little more penetration will change your perspective, dramatically.

Comment #65 - Posted by: Coach at May 20, 2006 12:43 PM

Ken, as a healthcare provider in the military, injury reduction plays a large role in my life. From the data I have seen, CF greatly reduces the amount of injuries vs that of "normal" military physical training. I am witnessing this right now in my unit. I would wager that the increased physical ability of soldiers conducting CF will help prevent injuries in future less friendly environments.

Comment #66 - Posted by: Robert @ Ft Carson at May 20, 2006 1:31 PM

Ken (#12);
Good post. I work for a leading manufacturer of Stress ECG systems. We've been looking for better ways to assess cardiac health thru "classic" non-invasive diagnostic means. One of our scientists believes this recent effort has borne some fruit. I'm just a mere software developer (e.g. they give me the algorithms to implement and I find a way to implement them) so alot of this stuff is way beyond my expertise. Still, here's the link. Maybe some of you docs will find it interests. BTW; the full paper will be published "soon" I'm told. I'll post in on the message board when its released.

http://www.cardiacscience.com/news/news_detail.cfm?id=348

Comment #67 - Posted by: Mark Brinton at May 20, 2006 1:37 PM

As a matter of epistemology, I should add that I certainly believe that well-established empirical data (facts established on the ground) trump theory. Bad science is replete with examples of well-intentioned scientists sacrificing empirical reality because it did not conform with theory. Karl Popper wrote alot of good stuff on this. All theories are criticizable. Even the best theories are provisional in the sense that there's always the possibility that another theory, one that better conforms with reality (empirical data) comes along (newtonian physics good; Einsteinian physics better). That's evolutionary epistemology.

Comment #68 - Posted by: Mark Brinton at May 20, 2006 1:53 PM

Dan (#39/#40) - thanks - we were happy with #5 in the nation, and that we lost to the eventual finalist (U Northern Colorado) was tough, esp. because we sat two of our kids for not meeting their academic obligations, but in the long run - as you've gone through it, it is better that way.

Anyhow - notice I hedged my statement by saying "global climate change", not "global warming" (I've been hanging around too many lawyers!!)... that's the popular press approach. I have to say it has been odd here in Jonesboro, hot, then cold, then hot again - no real seasons here this "spring" (we're in the midst of April showers this month!).

I do want to make it to the seminar - but a wedding, house, dog, etc. and the bills pile on(you know I've been hoping it was next summer). If I can get some summer consulting, I'll try to make it - sorry to wuss out, though.

John Seilor (#10) - You're right - I always figured that makers of Chuck Wagon snuck some hallucinogenics into the dog food to give the poor pups DTs so they'd run into the wall... And don't forget, Chuck E. Cheese - mutated rat extraodinaire!

Ken (#61) One interesting thing I have experienced just a month or so ago has been the Chair of our university's physical therapy program, in response to our discussion of all the shoulder injuries on the rugby team this past year, suggest that the rugby team (and the rodeo team) do more Olympic lifting (clean and jerks, snatches) because it strengthens the connective tissue. Anecdotally, I can tell you that there was a _huge_ drop in knee injuries this year when I had our players doing plyometric work (skipping, bounding, etc.) during practice. As kipping is a plyometric move of sorts, I'd suggest that it is a highly important skill to develop to strengthen the shoulder girdle.

In response to your query - yes, it would be optimal to set up an experimental research design whereby we randomly assigned people to a kipping and strict group, but resources aren't necessarily available. Nor do I think it is all that necessary when you consider the preponderance of evidence provided in the form of multiple case studies on this website (for instance, over two years of Xfit, my pullups have gone from 12 to 25 with the kip, along with a confounding factor of my adding 25 lbs of weight), as well as the Canadian military study presented in Crossfit Journal.

Comment #69 - Posted by: Patrick at May 20, 2006 2:45 PM

To add to Coach’s statements of Crossfit’s injury rate compared to other, I would reference Jan 2006 Crossfit Journal as one source of both effectiveness and safety.
As both a strict and kipping pull-up practitioner, I would add to the tired arguments (I think the horse is rotting as well as being dead) that Dan (#62) might reconsider the issue of practical application of the Kipping pull-ups. As a climber, a non-explosive pull-up (a deadpoint if you are into jargon) is preferable in all situation, an explosive (closer to kipping pull-up) is not preferable since the target of the next move (upward lunge) might be unexpected or non-ideal (such as a loose or sloping hold) and an explosive move does not allow one to retreat and reevaluate the next move. With that said, some moves at the higher end require an explosive move. Also, a weighted (such as an alpine pack) person is less able to kip, so a dead hang has greater functional value.
In my opinion, train for everything and use the best tool in your toolbox for the job at hand. Time spent over analysizing might be better spent doing a couple sets of pull-ups (alternating set of kip and deadhang?).
Best quote from the article is “Coaches have understood things the scientists didn’t”. As to the suggestions that Crossfit conduct controlled studies on various aspects of the Crossfit programming (Ken #61), I think it is important to understand the levels of validity and proof. Do you need a double blind FDA approved study with 10,000 randomly selected subjects to figure out why eating a gallon of ice cream in one setting will make you feel sick? Or would you simple not eat that gallon of ice cream after you got a belly ache the first time? While the science is no doubt interesting, most don’t have time to figure out why before changing our behaviors to what works. Time on the planet is pretty short.
I say, leave the scientist to the absolute proofs. And let the best coaches determine the best protocols (test for effectiveness, but avoid getting caught up in the reasons for the effectiveness) for building the best athletes.

Comment #70 - Posted by: justin at May 20, 2006 2:50 PM

I really like the article. Every sports coach I've ever had knows what these scientists are apparently just confirming.
I missed Angie the other day so I did it today. I went out last night so I wasn't in the best condition to be doing crossfit. Completed it in 35:32. I'm still not very good at pull-ups so I had to do jumping pull-ups after the first 10.

Comment #71 - Posted by: Jason at May 20, 2006 2:54 PM

Coach,

Ref: "slow down on the theorizing and dig into the workouts. Eat right. Learn more about the community. A little more penetration will change your perspective, dramatically"

I am impressed with CrossFit and I'm trying to learn as much as I can about it. I signed up for the May seminar but postponed it until July to better fit my schedule. I am working my way through all the CrossFit Journals in preparation for that seminar. I do all the WOD's to the best of my ability.

I am trying to get a CrossFit group established here in San Antonio, the 8th largest city in the U.S. So far, I've failed to find anyone else in town that follows it. Although, a couple of para rescue guys out at Lackland AFB "occasionally" do the WODs. At least they have heard of it.

Although I've always been active, I do not see myself heading a workout group. My questions are
in preparation for possibly do so.

Ref the safety issue. I've injured myself twice in the 5 months I've been doing CrossFit. In the 22 years of Air Force PT (wimpy I'll admit)and all else that I've done, I haven't injured myself so much in such a short time. That's an anecdote. I cannot conclude the CrossFit is more dangerous that running, swimming, bike riding, etc, because I don't have the numbers. But my personal experience raises the question. If CrossFit safety has been measured by some means I would greatly appreciate it, if you could provide me the data.

And as a word of praise, The CrossFit site is the best site I have ever seen as judged by content, the great message boards, and most importantly, the openness of this site to discussions, criticisms, suggestions. Off all the many links on the site, I have never gotten a pop-up asking me to buy some supplement or been hit with e-mail spam trying to get me to buy so equipment. This site demonstrates the potential for the internet


Comment #72 - Posted by: Ken Davis at May 20, 2006 3:57 PM

kb fun:
18# halos: 10/10
35# hot potato: 18
double 26 clean&press: 5/front squat: 5
double 35 clean&press: 5/front squat: 5
double 44 clean&press: 5/front squat: 5

passing ladder:
double 44# swings, 10...1
double 35# clean&press, 1...10 (alternating exercises)
16:20

Comment #73 - Posted by: Lynne Pitts at May 20, 2006 4:02 PM

Read the Physorg article posted a couple of weeks ago and now this more consumer friendly version.

One thought, before everyone discounts lactic acid's contribution to muscle soreness, is it possible that it does, if not processed by the liver and burned off as fuel?

Personally, I have experienced little muscle soreness doing CrossFit, whereas when I did the typicall 3x10-15 reps of isolated muscle groups there was soreness. I'm positive that I wasn't hitting anywhere near the anerobic state I do with CrossFit.

Also, the experiment with the frog legs that started the whole thing lacked one major factor - a liver to process the lactic acid.

Just a thought.

On another note, Coach, you mentioned 'virtue' the other day in one of your responses, I think regarding a posting re: politics, etc. I'd be interested in hearing your ideas and references on this topic. An open forum or off-board email would be fine, either way.

Comment #74 - Posted by: Dave at May 20, 2006 4:13 PM

Ken,
You need to post your shout-out to San Antonio CFers on the "Community" section of the CF message board, that will work a lot better than just "looking around".

Comment #75 - Posted by: Garrett Smith at May 20, 2006 4:37 PM

The problem isn't with science or scientists (necessarily), it's with bad logic. Myerhoff's frog data is what it is -- epirical data. His conclusions however, were just bad inductive reasoning on a number of levels that no one (until Brooks) bothered to question.

This is the problem in the scientific community (I can say that, I was once a member). How many physics, engineering, or chemistry majors have a required course in logic? None. Experiment design and conclusions are where these guys screw the pooch. The data is fine (usually).

Always, ALWAYS, question the assumptions. I got that from law school, not from research science, unfortunately.

Ken, the data is here on this site. Read the testimonials section once or twice. Read the posts here. None of this, however, will qualify for the NEJM or any peer reviewed study if that's what you're looking for. Your injuries are one case and I dont know enough about how you trained to conclude whether that's good data or just your fault for doing something wrong. But like almost everyone else here, I've trained a lot before this and nothing compares to the results I have gotten in 7 months of CF'ing. Not even close. So, join in and check out the message board, you'll even find some good "science" there, but what people/scientists "conclude" makes CF work is of little interest to me (and most others) -- I already know it does. The explanation is ... well, academic.

Comment #76 - Posted by: Dale Saran at May 20, 2006 4:55 PM

lol I see CF has gotten a hold of the NY article which sorta contradicts it's old article concerning our little dangerous friend- CrossFit.

At a local site the same article was posted and I gave my opinion of "That's what I've been saying all this time!" lol, I did have to caution the forum members over there. The sudden rush into anaerobic work might shatter their images of step aerobics and the practice of hamster-style.

Happy to have seen and read the link.

Onto some WOD work now- Some ME work followed by a 10k hike lol

Comment #77 - Posted by: xkawikax at May 20, 2006 6:39 PM

"How many physics, engineering, or chemistry majors have a required course in logic? None."

sounds like you need to question your assumptions because I was required to take a logic class as part of a chemistry major.

"The problem isn't with science or scientists (necessarily), it's with bad logic."

A scientist who uses bad logic is a bad scientist so the problem is the scientist. sounds like your logic could use some help. Did you take a logic class?

Comment #78 - Posted by: steve at May 20, 2006 6:57 PM

Yesterday WoD performed as part of Judo practice today.
5x5 ohs w/ 45 # bb.

Comment #79 - Posted by: Walt at May 20, 2006 8:16 PM

Yesterday WoD performed as part of Judo practice today.
5x5 ohs w/ 45 # bb.
Didn't even look as good as Eric in the photo.

Comment #80 - Posted by: Walt at May 20, 2006 8:17 PM

Rode 250 miles on my motorcycle on texas ranch roads. Knees, glutes, shoulders all more sore than after a tabatarama.

Comment #81 - Posted by: AndrewB at May 20, 2006 9:18 PM

Spic and Span Fran:

1st definition Fran with cleans:
21-15-9 Clean => Thruster (Clean from the ground,Catch the bar in the squat, Stand up into Thruster)
Pull ups

2nd definition: Each rep must be "clean" or perfect. Cleans must include triple ext. Catch must be below parallel. Thrusters must include active shoulders and full extension of arms. Pull ups must be chin above bar, way above bar.

Any faulty reps are not "clean" and must be repeated.


23:39

By comparison, Jeff got an 8:40.

ugh. That was horrible. I loved it.

Comment #82 - Posted by: laurar at May 20, 2006 9:42 PM

Hey John (#16,#50): I've been a CrossFit client and participant for six years and I too come here for the politics. Funny thing is I recognized the political & philosophical wisdom before I understood the fitness. The political/economic truths were more obvious to me than the physical ones. Over time my skepticism concerning the WOD + Zone Diet was ground into acceptance by the crushing weight of empirical evidence.

There is nothing allegorical that links the fitness to the philosophy. The connection is entirely literal. Coach stated it plainly on 5/19 when he wrote:

"I hold the same methods of intellect, and standards of virtue, for thinking about 'fitness' that I do for 'politics'.

These methods and standards led to classical liberalism or libertarianism in one domain and CrossFit in another."

Comment #83 - Posted by: Brian Mulvaney at May 20, 2006 10:50 PM

regarding this quote:
"There’s nothing inherently wrong or dangerous with doing pull-ups. When done in a strict fashion, the pull-up is a very productive exercise for increasing the strength of the upper back, biceps and lower arms. But since this workout is to be completed in the shortest amount of time and is somewhat competitive, the emphasis is on doing the repetitions quickly not strictly."

One quick comment from both an affiliate and someone who has worked out at CFHQ (in the late 90's and recently as a customer before I was an affiliate) well as with other affiliates. There is a difference between doing the WOD on your own from the website and doing it with an affiliate or at CFHQ. That difference is that there is a coach present. That coach knows that you will get the most improvement by doing the movement correctly. To verify what I am saying you can hear the comments from Annie and other trainers in the recent videos. It is true that these WODs can be competitive and they are to be done as quickly as possible, but it is important to understand that the people that are doing these workouts are being trained outside of these workouts (and even during the workouts) to do the movements correctly. I think even a cursory reading of the site will show that works because intensity is added to the correct form (i.e. that intensity follows correct/efficient/functional movement).

Comment #84 - Posted by: saulj at May 20, 2006 11:36 PM

Patrick,
Re shoulder injuries. In the same CF Journal that has the Rhabdo article there is a very good article by Tyler Hass on shoulder therapy. Full ROM pullups, building up to kipping pullups, builds very strong shoulders.
We've had very few shoulder injuries and it may have something to do with the fact that we do a lot of handstand work. 3 x 20 sec in all our warmups. In pre game warmups it is guaranteed to get some funny looks.

Comment #85 - Posted by: Dan MacD at May 21, 2006 5:27 AM

Ken Davis: Comment #72

If you see this, drop me an e-mail. I'm in San Antonio and have the names of several other local CrossFitters who previously have expressed interest in getting together (e.g., some AF at Randolph, Laccross players at Trinity). Agree with suggestion to post a question in the Message Board Community to help cast a wider net.

Comment #86 - Posted by: Brendan Smith at May 21, 2006 5:48 AM

Laura (#82): Strong Fran, nice.

I'm out of sequence on my rest days, so:

"Karen Katch" with a friend, over a 10' beam, 20# ball. about 10 min.

Walking funny the rest of the day...

Comment #87 - Posted by: Alex McClung at May 21, 2006 11:01 AM

>There is a difference between doing the WOD on your own from the website and doing it with an affiliate or at CFHQ. That difference is that there is a coach present. That coach knows that you will get the most improvement by doing the movement correctly.

What does one do if the nearest affiliate is located several countries away from one's home?

Comment #88 - Posted by: Matt in Germany at May 21, 2006 12:49 PM

"Scientific community finally says 'Simon says' to lactic acid."

"Everyone going early is now officially disqualified, says Dr. Arschimkopf."

Comment #89 - Posted by: barry cooper at May 21, 2006 4:46 PM

Did Helen
3 rounds of -
400M run
21 1.5 KB swings
12 Pullups
time: 13:53
rnd time splits run/swings/PUs
1 1:58 0:55 0:50
2 2:07 1:18 1:18
3 2:24 1:27 1:44

Comment #90 - Posted by: jeftyg at May 21, 2006 6:25 PM

Sure enjoyed the day off - fishing and NASCAR.

Comment #91 - Posted by: MG at May 22, 2006 11:17 AM

A couple of belated observations on the lactic acid topic.

The NYTimes article on lactic acid buildup is not science. It is a report about what should be science, but you can’t tell by the article if Brooks work at Berkeley qualifies. Ken Davis #12 made a first class observation about the importance of reading the original papers.

A moment to wax philosophical here: science is the objective branch of knowledge. It creates models of the real world, man made or natural. Those models must have predictive power, that is, the ability to state the results of future measurements better than mere guess work. A model that doesn’t fit all the data is a conjecture. A model that fits all the data, makes predictions, none of which have been demonstrated (the validation process) is a hypothesis. A hypothesis with some predictions validated is a theory. A theory validated in all imaginable ways is a law.

SteveMD #35 provided a fine example of a scientific model, and on point. It appears to be a theory. It’s qualitative, but its quantitative, too, in terms of ATPs and lactic acid time to metabolize. His model makes predictions in terms of disease processes, which he apparently have been validated. Nice going, doc.

Dave #74: good observation about Myerhoff’s frog leg experiment and the missing liver. Dale #76 observation was good, just a bit off target. He hit the thumb nail on the head. The problem is not the lack of logic. Something is missing in many scientist’s education, but its not logic from the philosophy department. The problem is the lack of control system theory from the engineering department.

Myerhoff’s experiment was open loop! What you get open loop is not what you get closed loop. As Dave #74 said, there was no liver to remove the lactic acid.

This problem has strong parallels in bad science that is driving public policy. In the laboratory, CFC molecules destroy ozone. Nobel Prize-worthy theory! Scientists jump to the conclusion, though, that CFCs in the atmosphere will destroy ozone, letting UV rays destroy life as we know it. The problem is that the UV rays create ozone from the oxygen in the atmosphere. Close the loop, guys, then see what you get.

Another example is in global warming science. The models driving public policy are open loop (conjectures – they can’t predict climate at all). Sure, they contain some good physics: the greenhouse effect (that much is theory). Add greenhouse gas and you get more heat retained – open loop. But heat the oceans and you get more water vapor, then more clouds, then more solar reflectance, so less heating. That’s why water vapor doesn’t cause runaway global warming. That’s why we don’t live in a steam room. Close the loop, guys!

And speaking of logic, Ken Davis #12 had another good point that he and others may have misunderstood. He said, “If the principles of CrossFit lead to superior fitness, then it must be scientifically demonstrable.” I’m not sure about the “must”, but regardless the statement was treated as if he had said not "then" but "if and only if". He did not say, “only if CrossFit is scientifically demonstrable can it lead to superior fitness.”

CrossFit is Coach’s baby. I recommend we go ahead and raise our babies, and not wait for Dr. Spock to be made into science and validated.

Science lags experience, though not for lack of trying to get ahead of it. Ken’s right, though, that trial and error is better than error and error.

The other lesson here is don’t react blindly to everything (or anything) called science. What’s missing is scientific literacy: knowing what science is. The omission is not just in the public, its common among scientists. It’s not just missing in public schools, it’s missing in the universities.

Education is open loop.

Comment #92 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at May 22, 2006 11:20 AM

Whole article...one quote.

'It became clear that it is not so simple as to say, lactic acid is a bad thing and it causes fatigue."


Umm yup. Not much else here logic, sceince or otherwise.

Comment #93 - Posted by: Dave at May 22, 2006 1:45 PM
Post a comment






Remember personal info?