The Ohio University Study on CrossFit

Mr_Knight

I just have to say that it seems a bit contradictory for so many to criticize this study for failing to have a control group, and yet nobody challenges these statements about Crossfit having a high injury rate. How do you know without a control group?

Relax, it was a joke.

raw_meal

Why must you post this crap EVERY SINGLE DAY?

This is why so much of the fitness community downs crossfit. It is not that we do not like crossfit, it is that we do not like 90% of crossfitters who have the constant compulsive need to be validated that what they are doing is considered a workout to everyone else.

This is exactly why crossfitters experience so much "hate." Most of you are like the digital jehovah witness' of the fitness community. Don't you have enough fully dedicated CF websites to spew useless studies about obvious general observations with working out? Or is this like a mating call you use for other crossfitters to see so you can all come in a thread and begin the buttloving?

It's information if you don't like it don't read it. You know all this stuff already so move on. I posted it because I see negativity on CF. So I put it up for others. Not you. Go post I lift weights all day because you have time. I won't read it.

That is the thing. I come in, see something labeled crossfit so and so and think, "you know what, maybe today might be the day! Maybe today something is posted that isn't completely laughable, I shall click on this link." Then I see your avatar and my heart instantly drops as I know there is maybe only 5% chance in hell that you might possibly post something of real value other than "working out helps your fitness, crossfit number 1!" Then I browse and realize that the 5% chance I give you needs to be re-adjusted down to maybe 1% just because I do not believe anything is impossible.

AND

You see so much negativity towards crossfit because people like you make these threads like this. I honestly feel bad for the crossfit population that does want to be taken seriously or has something USEFUL to post.

Thanks for your pity I appreciate it and you have it all wrong. Again info. There is negative facts on crossfit in the study. It's just a study get over it. Crossfit is bad for you. It cost too much. People who do it are losers and can't work out on their own. Got the message. Move on to beating your kids if you have any.

Seriously, you need to put every argument pro and con out of your mind for a minute and think about this. If you post advertising for ANYTHING that disguises itself as a "study", you will generate negative responses because its: 1)false, 2)dishonest, and 3)annoying. Would you like a lot more pop-up ads in your reading? I had nothing against Crossfit if you like it and have a good coach and are careful not to overtrain and it works for you, thats absolutely awesome! But from your false "studies" alone I'm getting a very very negative view of Crossfit. Logically, it must have some very strong negatives to obscure if they do so many pretend studies like this, and something to prove if all it can manage to do is spend money for falseness...somethings got to be very wrong with it. Is that really what you want to point out? You did for me.

Good point and I am sorry you feel that way about CF. Look at any other thread with CF in it, you may feel the same about CF base on the discussions there. It's the same theme.
But we are in a forum, where things are discussed, isn't this the purpose of a forum? I could have blindly went on my merry way and thought this was a good study and promulgated it further, as well as others who ran into it. I threw it up for discussion. By the way my Gym owner brought up the one yesterday. I saw the article and threw up here.

Is it better to assume it's correct and not post or post to see what falls out? Am I wrong about posting it in forum? I don't have any other place to check this. I got killed yesterday for a post and today for a post. If I really did the research on the article it would take me a long time (free time) for me to assess and still not know that the study was flawed without a background these types of research. I don't regret posting it. I do regret my one comment.

So here we are in a forum discussing it. Should we have a censor for posting here? This place appears to be self censoring.

jonnythan

Good point and I am sorry you feel that way about CF. Look at any other thread with CF in it, you may feel the same about CF base on the discussions there. It's the same theme.
But we are in a forum, where things are discussed, isn't this the purpose of a forum? I could have blindly went on my merry way and thought this was a good study and promulgated it further, as well as others who ran into it. I threw it up for discussion. By the way my Gym owner brought up the one yesterday. I saw the article and threw up here.

Is it better to assume it's correct and not post or post to see what falls out? Am I wrong about posting it in forum? I don't have any other place to check this. I got killed yesterday for a post and today for a post. If I really did the research on the article it would take me a long time (free time) for me to assess and still not know that the study was flawed without a background these types of research. I don't regret posting it. I do regret my one comment.

So here we are in a forum discussing it. Should we have a censor for posting here? This place appears to be self censoring.

Serious suggestion: instead of posting a link to an article and saying "CrossFit comes out on top" or whatever, post a link to the article and say "does this study make any sense?"

Then - and here's the most important part - when you get a dozen people pointing out valid criticisms of the study, say "I understand your criticisms and now see that the article doesn't really say much" instead of defending it.

GiddyupTim

I don't think he was defending the study. He was just closely questioning your assessments, in order to better explore them. That's a pretty valid response.
Why do you think he should just accept your opinion without putting it to a test?

Docpremie

I don't know anything about crossfit, so I have no dog in this fight. I also agree that the "dropout rate" was very high. They are also missing the diet factor, which could have changed things drastically on it's own. Would it have been nice to see a "non-treated group," absolutely! Is the study ideal, far from it!

That said, studies are designed all the time with the "pre" values being used for the control & the "post" value serving as the change in result. You can have a subject serve as its own control with "change in treatment." It looks to me, as if that is what was done here. In medical studies for drugs & other treatments, subjects can serve as their own control. For example, a new antihypertensive medication is tried, the BP pre-med can serve as the "control" for treatment effect of the med. Ideally studies are done in "blinded, randomized fashion," however those types of studies are getting harder & harder to fund & carry out.

Edit: I just googled to find the original study & they did indeed use the subjects as their own controls. The measurement of % body fat was also done in an acceptable manner. The pre & post results were analyzed by a 2-tailed, paired t-test, which is appropriate. The also broke the test subjects out into group according to their "pre test" numbers & used a linear regression model to study changes, since their where large differences in their pre-test fitness. I thought the study results looked pretty clean, as their wasn't any overlap when "standard deviations" were thrown in; however in looking at the actual paper. they used "stander error" instead of standard deviation. The standard error is a quick trick to make the data look better & more clean than standard deviation, so the results aren't nearly as clean as they appear in the graphs.

raw_meal

Good point and I am sorry you feel that way about CF. Look at any other thread with CF in it, you may feel the same about CF base on the discussions there. It's the same theme.
But we are in a forum, where things are discussed, isn't this the purpose of a forum? I could have blindly went on my merry way and thought this was a good study and promulgated it further, as well as others who ran into it. I threw it up for discussion. By the way my Gym owner brought up the one yesterday. I saw the article and threw up here.

Is it better to assume it's correct and not post or post to see what falls out? Am I wrong about posting it in forum? I don't have any other place to check this. I got killed yesterday for a post and today for a post. If I really did the research on the article it would take me a long time (free time) for me to assess and still not know that the study was flawed without a background these types of research. I don't regret posting it. I do regret my one comment.

So here we are in a forum discussing it. Should we have a censor for posting here? This place appears to be self censoring.

Serious suggestion: instead of posting a link to an article and saying "CrossFit comes out on top" or whatever, post a link to the article and say "does this study make any sense?"

Then - and here's the most important part - when you get a dozen people pointing out valid criticisms of the study, say "I understand your criticisms and now see that the article doesn't really say much" instead of defending it.

The thread is: TOPIC: The Ohio University Study on CrossFit

issyfit

The thread is: TOPIC: The Ohio University Study on CrossFit

In case you missed my earlier post--it should be Ohio State University. Ohio University is a different school in a different city.

links_slayer

The thread is: TOPIC: The Ohio University Study on CrossFit

In case you missed my earlier post--it should be Ohio State University. Ohio University is a different school in a different city.

there should also be " " around the word Study.