IGX

WildGorillaMan wrote:I gotta say, I think my favorites this week are:

http://crossfithardcore.typepad.com/.a/ ... d01970c-pi

protobuilder wrote:
HOLY SHIT @ the faggot with his nipples pierced

protobuilder wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:I gotta say, I think my favorites this week are:

http://crossfithardcore.typepad.com/.a/ ... d01970c-pi

HOLY SHIT @ the faggot with his nipples pierced

Gin Master wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:I gotta say, I think my favorites this week are:

http://crossfithardcore.typepad.com/.a/ ... d01970c-pi

HOLY SHIT @ the faggot with his nipples pierced

He calls himself "Bionic."

Gin Master wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:I gotta say, I think my favorites this week are:

http://crossfithardcore.typepad.com/.a/ ... d01970c-pi

HOLY SHIT @ the faggot with his nipples pierced

He calls himself "Bionic."

Hi Johanna,

That's a good question, and it speaks to the difference between so-called innate or native knowledge knowledge and scientific knowledge with replicable methods and results. Why do a quasi-blinded randomized experiment? I can think of about five reasons.

1) Removing preferences and biases. A Crossfit fan comparing the two methods is likely to change their behavior and effort depending on which technique they're using. If I'm out to prove that Crossfit is better, my workout behavior will reflect that. These personal biases are often unconscious, and I wouldn't want them to affect my workout.
2) Establishing clear benchmarks for performance ex ante.
3) Statistical power. Differences between training methods are likely to be small. A single individual, or even a small group, won't be large enough to detect differences between methods (i.e., the margin of error will be too large). This argues for a larger-group randomized evaluation.
4) Supervision and documentation. A principal investigator can track how individuals cheat/shirk and modify their regimens, and can adopt standards and models to adjust for these differences.
5) Avoiding problems with "interference" that come about as a result of training. This is a fancy way of saying that the person I am in month 1 is not the same person in month 2, and the training I receive in month 1 could affect what happens in month 2. (In fact, that's the point of training!) Suppose I decide to alternate methods each month, and do Crossfit during month 1. I increase my overall pushup load by 30%; I then switch to Gym Jones, and only increase my pushup load by 15%. Was that because Gym Jones was half as good, or is it because I was going to hit a plateau anyway regardless of which method I was using?
6) Ending the use of anecdotes as evidence in debates over training methods.

Now, this is not to say that there isn't a place for individuals to do a more rigorous job comparing different training methods, and to make their results available, and even to organize information from these individual trials in a way that would be useful and generalizable to the community at large.

What you seem to be arguing for is doing n-of-1 experiments. These are an increasingly common technique in drug trials, and athletes have used them to evaluate the personal effect of supplements like caffeine: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/healt ... ta,%20Gina. But any n-of-1 study can run into problems. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... 1/?apage=2

Charismatic megafauna wrote:isn't that the chap who pulled out of the gaymz last minute?

survey says...Winstrol didn't clear fast enough.

WildGorillaMan wrote:

Charismatic megafauna wrote:isn't that the chap who pulled out of the gaymz last minute?

survey says...Winstrol didn't clear fast enough.

Who the hell would actually take the Gaymes' testing at face value and drop out because of it?

Charismatic megafauna wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:

Charismatic megafauna wrote:isn't that the chap who pulled out of the gaymz last minute?

survey says...Winstrol didn't clear fast enough.

Who the hell would actually take the Gaymes' testing at face value and drop out because of it?

a short fellow with nip rings

LooseNut wrote:

Gin Master wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:I gotta say, I think my favorites this week are:

http://crossfithardcore.typepad.com/.a/ ... d01970c-pi

HOLY SHIT @ the faggot with his nipples pierced

He calls himself "Bionic."

That bionic faggot has his belly button pierced as well. What's next a tramp stamp?

Brandon Oto wrote:

Hi Johanna,

That's a good question, and it speaks to the difference between so-called innate or native knowledge knowledge and scientific knowledge with replicable methods and results. Why do a quasi-blinded randomized experiment? I can think of about five reasons.

1) Removing preferences and biases. A Crossfit fan comparing the two methods is likely to change their behavior and effort depending on which technique they're using. If I'm out to prove that Crossfit is better, my workout behavior will reflect that. These personal biases are often unconscious, and I wouldn't want them to affect my workout.
2) Establishing clear benchmarks for performance ex ante.
3) Statistical power. Differences between training methods are likely to be small. A single individual, or even a small group, won't be large enough to detect differences between methods (i.e., the margin of error will be too large). This argues for a larger-group randomized evaluation.
4) Supervision and documentation. A principal investigator can track how individuals cheat/shirk and modify their regimens, and can adopt standards and models to adjust for these differences.
5) Avoiding problems with "interference" that come about as a result of training. This is a fancy way of saying that the person I am in month 1 is not the same person in month 2, and the training I receive in month 1 could affect what happens in month 2. (In fact, that's the point of training!) Suppose I decide to alternate methods each month, and do Crossfit during month 1. I increase my overall pushup load by 30%; I then switch to Gym Jones, and only increase my pushup load by 15%. Was that because Gym Jones was half as good, or is it because I was going to hit a plateau anyway regardless of which method I was using?
6) Ending the use of anecdotes as evidence in debates over training methods.

Now, this is not to say that there isn't a place for individuals to do a more rigorous job comparing different training methods, and to make their results available, and even to organize information from these individual trials in a way that would be useful and generalizable to the community at large.

What you seem to be arguing for is doing n-of-1 experiments. These are an increasingly common technique in drug trials, and athletes have used them to evaluate the personal effect of supplements like caffeine: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/healt ... ta,%20Gina. But any n-of-1 study can run into problems. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... 1/?apage=2

http://journal.crossfit.com/2009/08/ins ... mment-6256

This is probably the smartest shit I've ever seen on the internet.

Brandon Oto wrote:

That's a good question, and it speaks to the difference between so-called innate or native knowledge knowledge and scientific knowledge with replicable methods and results. Why do a quasi-blinded randomized experiment? I can think of about five reasons.

1) Removing preferences and biases.
2) Establishing clear benchmarks for performance ex ante.
3) Statistical power.
4) Supervision and documentation.
5) Avoiding problems with "interference" that come about as a result of training.
6) Ending the use of anecdotes as evidence in debates over training methods.

This is probably the smartest shit I've ever seen on the internet.

The Bastard Son of the Shafman wrote:This thread seems full of dicksuckers looking to suck. @FGS is simply a proxy for whatever else they are craving, so they don't look totally HIV+sy.

The Bastard Son of the Shafman wrote:Nipple homo is good example of the results more anabolic as opposed to androgenic drugs can do.

"That we've got NOTHING until we've taken these measures. NOTHING."

"We won't know until we measure, until that work is done, and we're not going to do it, we're going to let others do it."

Also, LOL at the continued fellating of @Fit Greyskull. In the land of @Fit he is surely awesome but I really don't think there needs to be daily updates on what he does right (ie, normal for everywhere else).

Resident Quack wrote: Here's your dude tramp stamp:
http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/Celio.html

The Bastard Son of the Shafman wrote:Now, tramp stamps on slightly underdressed single mommies don't.