scott abel article on crossfit.

[Preston Sprimont]

Originally Posted by Russell Greene

Exercise science? That's a funny one. Ever noticed that any field that has science in its name tends to NOT actually be science? Political science, social science, exercise science etc.

Has exercise science developed a theory (not a guess, but something that has made predictions later confirmed by data) to explain delayed onset muscle soreness?

If they can't tell you why your muscles get sore, how are they going to tell you, in detail, how to program for fitness (a term they don't even have a solid definition for)?

Life science, physical science, formal science... yeah, definitely all pseudo-sciences. They never use the scientific method or anything... A bunch of whacked-out, voodoo-practicing emeritus professors who like to propagate ridiculous theories among the ignorant masses.

Seriously though. I'm not sure if exercise science has developed an official theory on what causes DOMS. I'm sure someone in the field has, but I've never looked into it all that much. Maybe they're all wrong. Maybe if they attended a weekend certification they would learn the answers. I'm not claiming that I or they know it all, but there has been some pretty worthwhile investigation done in the field of exercise science.

And empirical evidence, trial and error, observation, measurement, repeated testing... these all probably have something to do with the current theories on stress/adaptation as it applies to physical strength/endurance/etc in humans.

[Keith Homfeldt]

Ken Nosaka has pretty much nailed down the cause of DOMS hasn't he?

[Russell Greene]

Originally Posted by Keith Homfeldt

Ken Nosaka has pretty much nailed down the cause of DOMS hasn't he?

Not according to him:

"Over the last 20 years, "muscle damage" and "DOMS" have been the main topic of my research, and I have carried out many studies and published more than 50 scientific journal articles relating to the topic. However, the more I study about it, the more I realize how much I do not know! This is why I am still wrestling with the topic, and trying to understand better how "muscle damage" results in DOMS. We now know that "eccentric contractions" in which skeletal muscle fibres are lengthened while producing force induce muscle damage, especially when they are performed without previous training. We also know that DOMS is one of the symptoms of muscle damage. However, we still do not know how exactly DOMS is induced. I want to know this "perfectly" before I die!"

Source: http://www.ecu.edu.au/research/week/...sor-ken-nosaka (Link is W/F Safe)

[Donald Lee]

Russell,

What do you think of Louie's deference for the old Soviet exercise science? Also, what are your thoughts on well-known coaches, such as Charlie Francis, Anatoly Bondarchuk, and Chris Carmichael, who rely on their knowledge of exercise science for training their athletes?

[Ryan Dell Whitley]

Originally Posted by Russell Greene

Exercise science? That's a funny one. Ever noticed that any field that has science in its name tends to NOT actually be science? Political science, social science, exercise science etc.

Has exercise science developed a theory (not a guess, but something that has made predictions later confirmed by data) to explain delayed onset muscle soreness?

If they can't tell you why your muscles get sore, how are they going to tell you, in detail, how to program for fitness (a term they don't even have a solid definition for)?

Cool. I didn't know that the CrossFit staff had definitively explained the physiological mechanism that leads to DOMS and that their conclusions withstood the peer review process and are now considered a valid theory. Now I can trust CrossFit for all of my exercise needs. Thanks CrossFit!

[Dimitri Dziabenko]

To be honest, I take offense at people bashing exercise scientists, who are often far more knowledgable than the people making the criticism. They do what they can, with the funding that is available, studying mechanisms in the body that may or may not be of interest to you personally.

Also "variance" in statistics measures the spread of a random variable, which is what Mainpage WODs are, a random variable. It's a random variable that has preferences for certain movements, is very conditioning heavy, etc..., but random nevertheless.

[Russell Greene]

Originally Posted by Dimitri Dziabenko

To be honest, I take offense at people bashing exercise scientists, who are often far more knowledgable than the people making the criticism. They do what they can, with the funding that is available, studying mechanisms in the body that may or may not be of interest to you personally.

Also "variance" in statistics measures the spread of a random variable, which is what Mainpage WODs are, a random variable. It's a random variable that has preferences for certain movements, is very conditioning heavy, etc..., but random nevertheless.

Let's consult Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/random. (W/F safe)

"ran·dom   [ran-duhm]
adjective
1.
proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2.
Statistics . of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen."

If the mainsite workouts are chosen to develop work capacity across broad time and modal domains (aim), to prepare an athlete for a wide variety of physical tasks (reason), intentionally hitting particular time domains, loads, and movements on a regular basis (pattern), how is that random?

Using the statistics definition, certain movements and workouts have a higher probability of being chosen than others. "Random" doesn't apply there either.

[Andrew Bell]

Originally Posted by Russell Greene

Let's consult Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/random. (W/F safe)

"ran·dom   [ran-duhm]
adjective
1.
proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2.
Statistics . of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen."

If the mainsite workouts are chosen to develop work capacity across broad time and modal domains (aim), to prepare an athlete for a wide variety of physical tasks (reason), intentionally hitting particular time domains, loads, and movements on a regular basis (pattern), how is that random?

Using the statistics definition, certain movements and workouts have a higher probability of being chosen than others. "Random" doesn't apply there either.

It's kind of like the lotto really, we KNOW it will be between a given set of numbers, but if predicting was that easy wouldn't we all be millionaires?

I think we are kind of arguing semantics at this point though. Let's just agree to disagree.

[Collin Thompson]

Originally Posted by Russell Greene

Exercise science? That's a funny one. Ever noticed that any field that has science in its name tends to NOT actually be science? Political science, social science, exercise science etc.

Has exercise science developed a theory (not a guess, but something that has made predictions later confirmed by data) to explain delayed onset muscle soreness?

If they can't tell you why your muscles get sore, how are they going to tell you, in detail, how to program for fitness (a term they don't even have a solid definition for)?

Wait, how is this relevant at all to whether or not Crossfit main page has rhyme and reason to its programming? Seems like rather than explaining Crossfit you're bashing exercise science.

[Keith Homfeldt]

Originally Posted by Andrew Bell

It's kind of like the lotto really, we KNOW it will be between a given set of numbers, but if predicting was that easy wouldn't we all be millionaires?

I think we are kind of arguing semantics at this point though. Let's just agree to disagree.

Yeah, its not truly "random," just not patterned.