Does Poliquin Understand What He Critiques?

It’s clear that Poliquin doesn’t understand CrossFit’s goals or methods. CrossFit’s ultimate goal is not “optimal technique” or to “activate high-threshold motor units”- it is to develop work capacity across broad time and modal domains. We do this by moving large loads, long distances, quickly, in a variety of different ways. Since life often demands it, CrossFitters train explosive movement while both fresh and fatigued, and with every possible load and rep scheme.

What happens if an athlete only trains explosive movements (power cleans) while fresh, and never after strength and/or conditioning work? How will he do this in real life if he never does it in the gym? The ability to move explosively when fatigued is necessary in both life and sport.

As a trainer with so much experience training sport specific athletes, don’t Poliquin’s fighters, football players, soccer players, etc. need to be able to make big plays late in the game or fight? The development of this capacity, to move explosively while fatigued, is something that fighters, football players, hockey players, and other sport-specific CrossFit athletes always mention as a primary benefit of CrossFit.

http://therussellsblog.com/2012/02/23/charles-poliquin-likes-crossfit/

This is a tough thing for many who come from more traditional S&C background to understand.  They've spent their careers trying to do specific things - develop discrete strength and power objectives - so when they see someone who's not trying to do that, they criticize "they are not like us! They don't value what we value!"  Right.  Because we want a different outcome than you want.  My friend Russell explains the difference nicely.

If you think in terms of "deadlifts fatigue the lower back" and "cleans are for development of explosive power" and "optimal development of capacity is developed when making maximal lifts" - all of which may be true in the context they are used by traditional S&C folks and for CrossFitters too - but isn't true in the context of a metabolic conditioning WOD (aka METCON).  For a METCON, we want to find ways to work hard, and mix them in many ways, just as life, sport and combat demands.  In other words, the clean can be many tools, not just a way to develop maximally explosive hip extension.  

At some point, all the critics will "get it."  "Oh, I see what they are going for", and 1000s of pages of criticism will immediately go up in smoke.

Causing Deaths? Yes.

Their website states “Our mission is to proactively support a sustainable exercise and fitness industry in New Zealand by growing participation in structured exercise through advocacy, information and industry standards.” As one CrossFit affiliate owner in NZ puts it, the organization does this by “milking money out of gyms and trainers so that they can call themselves ‘registered and trusted.’”

My source went on to explain that “They have strong ties to (and may even own) REPS – the Register of Exercise Professionals, which is basically the fitness industry version of the Healthy Heart tick we see on cereal boxes.  There is heavy promotion through industry related media to only train at REPS registered gyms, with REPS registered trainers. But of course, obtaining this registration only requires yearly membership payments…” 

REPs registration does require certain qualifications from a list of “registered providers”, but REPs itself appears to offer no educational offerings. At CrossFit HQ, we refer to this type of behavior as “rent-seeking,” which is the practice of trying to make money without creating value. It appears that Exercise NZ is extorting money from gyms by presenting itself as a fitness-industry authority.

http://therussellsblog.com/2014/06/18/ceo-of-exercise-new-zealand-richard-beddie-crossfit-caused-6-deaths/

CF is causing the death of BS organizations like Exercise NZ, and other pretenders to authority.

Why CrossFit?

They do it for three reasons. The first and most obvious is the physical result. High intensity exercise yields results that differ in kind from moderate-intensity efforts, not just in degree. In a peer-reviewed study in which one group exercised at moderate intensity for 45 minutes on a stationary bike and the other group did high-intensity intervals for 20 minutes and burned the same number of calories, the high-intensity group lost nine times the fat. Human growth hormone (HGH) and other compounds cascade into the blood of people who sprint as though a monster is chasing them and lift heavy objects as if earthquake survivors are trapped underneath. These hormones signal the body to burn fat and build muscle. The grim trudge-to-nowhere on a cardio machine, or miles of brisk walking, does not unlock this chemical cascade.
http://time.com/2890075/crossfits-primal-appeal/

I remember in 2007 and 2008 when I was in my first year of CrossFit, amazed at the changes I was experiencing, and wondering why there were folks who would still argue about CrossFit's efficacy.  Greg Glassman would muse about how folks speculated that it was his marketing genius or some other factor that was driving CrossFit's rabid growth, and the passion of its practitioners.  Coach would just say - "It's the results."

He was right.  If you want to be the strongest on the planet, CF may not be best for you.  If you want to be a lean, mean endurance specialist, the best in the world in your chosen endurance endeavor, CF may not be right for you.  If you are a track and field power athlete, or an NFL lineman, plain old CF may not be right for you.  CF is a core strength and conditioning program designed to make you competent across the spectrum of physical adaptations.  Specialists will need a different program.  If you want to be fit - fit for the unknown and unknowable challenge - CrossFit is the best program there is.  And if you want the most result you can get from 3-5 hours per week of training, and you are a busy mom or dad, CrossFit is outstanding.

Strangely, there's an approach to training football athletes that uses CrossFit.  There is an approach for endurance training that uses CrossFit.  MMA fighters use CrossFit and variations on the basic idea.  Boxers - even elite ones - use CrossFit.  Motorcross racers, cyclists, professional drummers and musicians, NFL players, basketball players and baseball players also have used/do use CrossFit.  In a way that doesn't make sense - they are specialists, they should be better served by a specialist's program.  And yet ....

Come see us at CrossFit Fire of the Gods, inside Coastal Performance Center (Cook's Corner).  Call 207-449-8996 (or text), or email us at cffotg at gmail dot com.  We will get your introductory lesson scheduled and launch you to elite fitness.

(Thanks to my friend Crusader for the bird dog to this article)

The Reporter Probably Knows Less About Cholesterol Than ....

"Studies showed us that high cholesterol levels were one of the most important risk factors for the development of heart attack and stroke, and we had evidence that lowering cholesterol lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke," Ridker says. "You can't say that about most everything else."

But looking at just one number doesn't provide a detailed-enough picture to precisely assess risk, because it doesn't account for the interplay among LDL, HDL and triglycerides, or the fact that each of these affects risk in a different way, Mozaffarian says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/you-probably-know-less-about-cholesterol-than-you-think-you-do-heres-some-help/2014/06/16/d9fa9350-e4fa-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

The headline was "you probably know less about cholesterol than you think you do."

The irony is killing me!  The scientific and medical community went a non-scientific lark for 30 years and they think "we" don't know much about cholesterol?  Expletive deleted here.

The first line of the article refers to a cardiologist who has to re-teach everyone what they should know about cholesterol - because his profession has been butchering this stuff for years.  Shame on them.  A money quote:

"There's a lot of confusion and controversy around cholesterol," says Mozaffarian, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School. "There is even confusion among the scientists who study it."

Of course there is.  That is why the scientific method is needed.  The problem was, folks used their power and positions of authority to spread conjectures about the science of cholesterol as if it were scientifically proven truth.  Why?

 "Studies showed us that high cholesterol levels were one of the most important risk factors for the development of heart attack and stroke, and we had evidence that lowering cholesterol lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke," Ridker says. "You can't say that about most everything else."

Translation: There's a weak correlation between high total cholesterol and CVD, and there's limited evidence, very little, that shows lowering cholesterol can reduce the incidence of CVD.  But there was never strong evidence that lowering blood cholesterol - either total or LDL - could be used for primary prevention of CVD.  

The author goes on to describe various results of epidemiological studies, all of which have been "shown by studies" to be junk.

To make sure the irony levels in your blood are high enough, the author dives right into unproven speculation about how to "reduce your risk" (aka how folks who do epidemiology assess risk via mathematics, which has nothing to do with actually determining how these behaviors affect live people via intervention study), by doing this, that or the other to change the numbers reflected on your lipid panel.  Which is to say - the author just continues the cycle of confusing speculation based on expert opinion, immature science and ..... bovine excrement.

Example:  Should you try to raise your HDL by medications or some magic pill (niacin, for example)?  No, that has been proved not to work, and may be harmful.  In other words, folks with high HDL generally are healthier, but if you take a sick person and manipulate their HDL it does not help.

A lovely understatement, for those who appreciate understatement:
"But there is some disagreement over which dietary changes are best for heart health, says Roger Blumenthal, director of the Ciccarone Center."
Translation:  "We don't have a freaking clue."

""For most people, cholesterol from food isn't a contributor to their cholesterol levels," Blumenthal says."
And for those whose blood cholesterol levels are affected by their dietary cholesterol intake, they have no idea whether that matters at all in the cause of CVD.

"High-fat foods, such as cheese and chocolate, have also been regarded as verboten, yet "the evidence for this may not be as strong as we once thought," he says."
Translation:  "We didn't have a freaking clue, but were unable to keep our mouths shut."

 So, in the face of all of the mis-information in just this one article, much less the rest of the web, what a guy or gal to do?

Eat meat, vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit or starch, and no sugar/wheat.

Make your belly smaller, increase your muscle mass, learn more each day about how to eat for health and performance.

CrossFit Book

Sounds like it may be a good read.

Overview

The absorbing, definitive account of CrossFit's origins, its explosive grassroots growth, and its emergence as a global phenomenon.

One of the most illuminating books ever on a sports subculture, Learning to Breathe Fire combines vivid sports writing with a thoughtful meditation on what it means to be human. In the book, veteran journalist J.C. Herz explains the science of maximum effort, why the modern gym fails an obese society, and the psychic rewards of ending up on the floor feeling as though you're about to die.

The story traces CrossFit’s rise, from a single underground gym in Santa Cruz to its adoption as the workout of choice for elite special forces, firefighters and cops, to its popularity as the go-to fitness routine for regular Joes and Janes. Especially riveting is Herz’s description of The CrossFit Games, which begin as an informal throw-down on a California ranch and evolve into a televised global proving ground for the fittest men and women on Earth, as well as hundreds of thousands of lesser mortals.

In her portrayal of the sport's star athletes, its passionate coaches and its “chief armorer,” Rogue Fitness, Herz powerfully evokes the uniqueness of a fitness culture that  cultivates primal fierceness in average people. And in the shared ordeal of an all-consuming workout, she unearths the ritual intensity that's been with us since humans invented sports, showing us how, on a deep level, we're all tribal hunters and first responders, waiting for the signal to go all-out. 

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/learning-to-breathe-fire-jc-herz/1117655438?ean=9780385348874

What is Risk and Why Do You Care

What's more risky, swimming pools at the house or guns in the house?  What's more risky, driving to the gym or the most dangerous workout program known to man?  What kills more kids than guns?  What kills more folks annually than were killed in ten years of US involvement in Viet Nam?

My fellow CF professional Russell Burger takes a stab at quantifying the "risk" question in this blog post.

http://therussellsblog.com/2014/01/29/on-movement-and-risk/

"With a long enough time frame, the fatality rate for all activities is 100%. An injury rate without a time frame is meaningless.A 74% injury rate over one workout is very different from a 74% rate over years of training.
"Outside Magazine is a first-class source for bad reporting on fitness. They made this mistake recently:

"Studies have pegged the CrossFit injury rate from as low as 16 percent to as high as 74 percent." (The 16 percent figure has never been substantiated, but the Outside reporter failed to seriously investigate that fact.)

"Furthermore, the 16 percent figure comes from a 6-week study, whereas the 74 percent figure comes from a study where the average CrossFit experience was 18.6 months. In other words, the 74 percent figure came from a study with a time frame over 13 times as long as the other study. It's not a fair comparison.
"One way to address time is find the number of injuries per 1000 hours of participation. This is the incidence rate."

An interesting fact Russell cites:  "At least 52 Americans have died competing in triathlons since 2007."  Americans killed because they were doing CrossFit since 2007 - none that I know of.  But that's a meaningless comparison because we don't know how many folks are doing these things, or the causes of death.  If half the triathlon deaths were cause by auto accident, that would change the meaning of the stat, as it would if half of the triathlon/auto death accidents were caused by dehydrated athletes jumping in front of cars due to confusion.

Russell points out that "The "general fitness training" source the researchers cite found a rate of 5.92 injuries per 1000 hours of training. That's nearly twice what the researchers found for CrossFit."

In the end, you get to pick - is CrossFit too dangerous for you?  How about parachuting?  Swimming in the ocean?  Mountain climbing?  Cliff diving?  After 7 years I'm very clear about the risk/reward curve for myself.  Most folks who do CrossFit know the risks, just like they know the risks for driving to the gym, and choose to take them.

Jimmy Moore on Time Article

As for the Time column by Walsh, he did an amazing job of explaining that there was never any science that proved any of the gloom and doom predictions about fat's impact on our health. We grew up on fat-free and low-fat everything because the United States government decided to start meddling in the nutritional affairs of Americans by offering up dietary advice based on propaganda and not on any solid science. Once that happened in earnest beginning in 1980, the fat-phobia was underway and we're still living under those auspices in 2014. Food companies attempted to cash in on this new trend and pumped out more and more products that have been stripped of fat. Did we get healthier as a result? You already know the answer.

The statistics Walsh cites are mind boggling. We think we have a healthcare crisis, but what we have is a preventative disease epidemic that a low-carb, high-fat diet could help with. My Cholesterol Clarity and Keto Clarity coauthor Dr. Eric Westman was quoted in this story explaining that "the studies to support (low-carb, high-fat diets) do exist." There was a hope that when people cut their saturated fat intake that they would replace those foods with more fruits and vegetables. That didn't happen. Instead, they ate more carbohydrates, grains, sugar and other sweeteners than ever before!

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/commentary-time-magazine-pushes-fat-myths-offers-mea-culpa-in-2014/22899

The day is coming when folks will snicker under their breath "that health care professional still thinks saturated fat is bad for you."