CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Fitness
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Fitness Theory and Practice. CrossFit's rationale & foundations. Who is fit? What is fitness?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-25-2012, 04:16 PM   #41
Preston Sprimont
Member Preston Sprimont is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Foothill Ranch  CA
Posts: 473
Re: scott abel article on crossfit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell Greene View Post
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.
__________________
Heart, Mind, and Swole

Last edited by Preston Sprimont : 02-25-2012 at 04:33 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 05:09 PM   #42
Keith Homfeldt
Member Keith Homfeldt is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sprague  WA
Posts: 73
Re: scott abel article on crossfit.

Ken Nosaka has pretty much nailed down the cause of DOMS hasn't he?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 05:19 PM   #43
Russell Greene
CrossFit Staff Russell Greene is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 223
Re: scott abel article on crossfit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Homfeldt View Post
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)
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 06:36 PM   #44
Donald Lee
Member Donald Lee is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cypress  CA
Posts: 1,123
Re: scott abel article on crossfit.

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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 08:31 PM   #45
Ryan Dell Whitley
Member Ryan Dell Whitley is offline
 
Ryan Dell Whitley's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clarksville  TN
Posts: 117
Re: scott abel article on crossfit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell Greene View Post
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!
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 12:51 PM   #46
Dimitri Dziabenko
Banned Dimitri Dziabenko is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto  ON
Posts: 1,080
Re: scott abel article on crossfit.

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 01:32 PM   #47
Russell Greene
CrossFit Staff Russell Greene is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 223
Re: scott abel article on crossfit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri Dziabenko View Post
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)

"ranĚdom   [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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 03:17 PM   #48
Andrew Bell
Member Andrew Bell is offline
 
Andrew Bell's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Houston  TX
Posts: 3,551
Re: scott abel article on crossfit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell Greene View Post
Let's consult Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/random. (W/F safe)

"ranĚdom   [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.
__________________
| Log (wfs) |
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 05:39 PM   #49
Collin Thompson
Member Collin Thompson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Novato  CA
Posts: 653
Re: scott abel article on crossfit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell Greene View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 07:21 PM   #50
Keith Homfeldt
Member Keith Homfeldt is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sprague  WA
Posts: 73
Re: scott abel article on crossfit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Bell View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scott Paltos @ PUMP CrossFit & Performance East Hanover, NJ Scott Paltos Workout Logs 155 11-21-2011 12:11 PM
Scott AFB, IL CrossFit Don Moss In Search of CrossFitters 2 01-30-2011 09:51 PM
Is Scott Sonnon slamming crossfit? David Cooke, Jr. Community 2 04-19-2006 03:48 PM
Scott Semple's CF journal article.... bill fox Community 0 06-06-2005 03:30 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.