Editor’s Note: Gatorade and MusclePharm would like you to believe that American sport science exists. But when John Weatherly told us that American sport science was largely a myth, we were surprised. Consider the source – John helped with conditioning programs and research at the U.S. Olympic Training Center. But even former NSCA president Michael Stone argues that American sport science is a myth. If American sport science doesn’t exist, what exactly are the National Strength and Conditioning Association and American College of Sports Medicine doing?

Part 1 of this series defined sport science. We quoted slide 2 of Dr. Michael Stone’s presentation as stating,

From the outset it is essential to understand that most scientists believing that they are sport scientists are really not.

Is this really sport science? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGf6pDoXIAAbE5r.jpg

I’ll keep the same procedure as the first article and put the slide number from Dr. Stone’s presentation in parentheses when referencing his presentation in this article.

Does the NSCA Live Up to Its Mission Statement?

In a previous article, I pointed out that three prominent NSCA figures didn’t support the NSCA’s Education Recognition Program (ERP) at their own universities.

What about sport science? How do these prominent NSCA figures support the athletes and coaches in the major American sports of football, basketball, and baseball? Recall the NSCA’s mission statement,

As the worldwide authority on strength and conditioning, we support and disseminate research-based knowledge and its practical application to improve athletic performance and fitness.

The Big 3 American Sports

Drs. Steven Fleck, Thomas Baechle, and William Kraemer are three of the most prominent figures in the NSCA. But are they sport scientists? Have they worked regularly with athletes and coaches in football, basketball, and baseball? Let’s take a look at the studies they’ve done over their long careers on the major American sports. To view the studies all you have to do is go to scholar.google.com and type in their names and degrees.

For example, I’ve included a link to Dr. Fleck’s research below, but all you need to do is go to scholar.google.com and type in “Steven J. Fleck, PhD.” You can do the same for “Thomas R. Baechle, EdD” and “William J. Kraemer, PhD.” It can be as boring as watching paint dry but if you are so inclined, be my guest.

Steven J. Fleck, PhD

Dr. Steven Fleck: https://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/BoardBio02.php?IDdirector=15

Examining current NSCA President Dr. Steve Fleck‘s research publications you’ll note he has worked on sports such as tennis. And he’s the last author listed on one study examining changes in creatine kinase over a college football season.

However, most of Dr. Fleck’s research has not looked at specific sports or athletes. And he has hardly done any research on football, basketball, or baseball players.

Thomas R. Baechle, EdD

Thomas Baechle: http://alumni.eku.edu/sites/alumni.eku.edu/files/1966_Baechle_Thomas_R.jpg?1396280261

Dr. Baechle has been at Creighton a long time and is the current Department Head. (Note on the site above for Dr. Baechle they still have not corrected that he is an Ed.D not a Ph.D, an error I pointed out in a prior article).

Looking at Dr. Baechle’s research publications, he’s been involved in a couple of surveys and such on basketball. That’s about it for sports. You would think, if Baechle was a sport scientist, that he would have a huge database on the training of athletes at Creighton. Dr. Baechle has worked at Creighton since the late 70’s.

Since Dr. Baechle barely done any research on athletes himself, this may explain why he still is writing about one of the old Matveyev models of periodization in the latest edition of the Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning textbook. Check out Part 1 and Part 2 of Dr. Lon Kilgore’s excellent series on this topic.

Is Dr. William Kraemer a Sport Scientist?

Source: http://www.nsca.com/annual-awards/william-kraemer/

On January 3, 2004 Dr. Kraemer gave a presentation on football training at the NSCA Sport-Specific Conference in Orlando, Florida. I attended that conference. As a side note, the NSCA has since dropped the words “sport-specific” from the title. They now call it the Coaches’ Conference. Perhaps the NSCA changed the name because the conference featured very little sport-specific research done on football, basketball and baseball?

I still have Dr. Kraemer’s outline from that football presentation. On page 200 of the conference program, Dr. Kraemer said:

“While more money is spent on equipment, the physical demands of the game are relatively unknown due to a lack of research”

Again, Dr. Kraemer was speaking about American Football!

So, what has Dr. Kraemer done over his long career? What research has he published on athletes in the huge American sports of football, basketball, and baseball? Dr. Kraemer is a publishing monster. He has allegedly worked on 855 published articles.

Out of a total of 855 publications, I counted one on a baseball pitcher, three on basketball and fifteen on football. The one article on elbow pain in a youth pitcher lists Kraemer as the last of four authors. So, it appears he wasn’t the primary investigator. On the three basketball publications, two of the articles list Kraemer as the last author and the remaining basketball study lists him second-to-last. With the football studies, Dr. Kraemer is the last or next-to-last investigator on eight out off fifteen.

Thus, out of Dr. Kraemer’s 855 publications, I counted only nineteen that were directly involved with baseball, basketball, or football. Of these nineteen, Dr. Kraemer was the primary or a main investigator on only around eight publications. This would hardly qualify as becoming a part of the sport or a monitoring program for athletes (Slide 2, Slide 4).

Dr. Kraemer would definitely seem to fit Dr. Stone’s definition of a “part-time sport scientist” at best or a scientist that does an occasional sport science project. Kraemer couldn’t be called a sport scientist according to Dr. Stone. And this is the man after whom the NSCA named it’s “Outstanding Sport Scientist Award.”

Of course, neither Fleck nor Baechle qualify as sport scientists, either (Slide 2, Slide 4).

Absence of Sport Science at U.S. Universities

One may wonder why there’s such a paucity of work at American universities on the major American sports of football, basketball and baseball? We just examined three prominent NSCA figures in the US and they have hardly done anything in their entire careers on the three major American sports. In fact, in Editor-in-Chief Dr. Kraemer’s Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (JSCR) you’ll find a lot more studies done in other countries on sports such as soccer and rugby than you ever will on the classic American sports of baseball, basketball and football.

Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEkQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.rugbyaltorendimiento.com%2F200000046-70eb271e6a%2Ftn.pdf&ei=g8t1Vb66B9KHsQTchIGIBA&usg=AFQjCNFpU9XB4lY0FNF5IhxFszSpM_LOYw

Why is Sport Science a Myth at U.S. Universities?

Why is the sport science program of Dr. Mike Stone et al. at East Tennessee State University (ETSU) the only one of its kind in the US?

There are several possible explanations for this. Staying with our theme of the big three American sports, let’s start by taking a peek at America’s pastime.

Almost twenty years ago, I published an article with the NSCA titled “Concepts for Baseball Conditioning.” In that article, I even had a section on directions for future research.

Source: http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/Citation/1996/04000/Concepts_for_Baseball_Conditioning_.7.aspx

NSCA researchers have accomplished very little work in this field since I published the article almost 20 years ago. Baseball is a sport with many questions about injuries – especially for pitchers.

Sandy Alderson, General Manager of the New York Mets, recently said: “We collaborate with anybody that’s looking into these topics.” It seems the NSCA and NSCA researchers would rather study supplements with funding from shady supplement companies than help baseball pitchers.

Major League Baseball (MLB) has relied on an extensive minor league system to develop and produce MLB players. It is very rare for a baseball player to jump from college or high school to MLB without playing in the minor leagues first. This is not true for the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the National Football League (NFL).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_League_Baseball#/media/File:Minor_league.jpg

While the NBA has started a developmental league in recent years (D-League), it is common for college players (and in some unusual instances high school players) to go straight to the NBA. In recent years, many talented players will attend college for just one year before declaring for the NBA Draft (one and done phenomenon). In football, it is extremely rare for a player to go to the NFL without a college football career. Thus universities are essentially the NBA and NFL’s minor leagues for player development.

On the surface, this would seem to be nearly an ideal situation for implementing sport science at universities. These universities recruit all over for players, so major university athletic programs get subjects that Shawn Myszka described as having “hit the sperm lottery.”

Source: https://footballbeyondthestats.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/review-of-nsca-study-on-divison-1-football-players/

These players are housed, fed and trained at universities where there are scientists to study them. So, why is the study Myszka reviewed the only longitudinal training study I’ve ever seen published on a major Division 1 football program?

I believe there are several plausible reasons:

1) Many scientists don’t care about sports or working with athletes (Slide 59, Slide 65).

2) Major universities hire research scientists to obtain grants and publish research. The largest grant for an exercise study ($2.52 million) I’ve heard of is the one Dr. Katie Heinrich et al. are doing looking at CrossFit training in the military.

3) Sport science-type grants really don’t exist in the U.S. (Slide 69).

4) There are “strings” attached when companies fund so-called sport science studies (Slide 69). As we all know by now, the NSCA seems to like funding from supplement companies and sports drinks.

5) Last but not least, academic fraud and other corruption with athletes.

Is there Hope for Sport Science in the U.S.?

We have one university in the U.S. that integrates its academic and athletic departments. That university is a smaller D1 program that recently decided to revive its football program: East Tennessee State University (ETSU).

ETSU integrates its scientists with the training of athletes: https://www.facebook.com/ETSUCESSCE/photos/pb.124525470953389.-2207520000.1433783769./848445631894699/?type=3&theater

ETSU integrates academic and athletic departments and provides sport science for most sports (football is an exception). It also serves as a U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) Training Site for several Olympic sports including Weightlifting, Bobsled and Luge, and Canoe/Kayak. This is the ONLY program like this in the entire U.S. If you want to work at a university with the top sport scientists in the country, you have to go to ETSU. There is no other option I’m aware of that integrates academic sport scientists with athletic departments and provides a formal degree program specializing in sport science (including Ph.D). 

By now, you would think other schools would have replicated ETSU’s model or created a similar model if they were actually interested in integrating sport science into the U.S. university system. Since universities have shown little or no interest in integrating sport science (with the ETSU exception), let’s look at other areas for sport science.

The Land Down Under

NSCA President-Elect Dr. Greg Haff, who like me is a proud part of Dr. Mike Stone’s Sport Science tree, moved from the U.S. to Australia. One of the main reasons seemed to be to do strength and sport science work. The Australian government funds sport science work. 

The Australian Institute of Sport: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/de-castella-queries-wisdom-of-ais-handing-over-purse-strings-20121129-2aja9.html

Unlike the U.S., where even the USOC receives no government support, the Australian government funds sports research. The Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) is highly regarded and perhaps the leading center for sport science in the world.The Philadelpha 76ers recently named Dr. David Martin from the AIS as their Head of Sport Science after a worldwide search.

This is the same David Martin who was a research assistant with the USOC while I was a USOC intern many years ago. As the story linked above states, Dr. Martin and his family moved to Australia in the 90s to work with “the trailblazers” in sport science (the AIS). Now, over twenty years later, he’s coming back to the US to lead the 76ers’ sport science.

Sport scientists working with professional teams in the U.S. are a recent phenomenon, but it’s been common in Australia and Europe for some time. Dr. Ben Peterson (a scientist/manager with Catapult Sports in the U.S.), mentioned to me on the phone last fall that the U.S. is 5-6 years behind on using Catapult data compared to Australia and Europe. Catapult is an interesting company that, not surprisingly, was basically born out of the AIS.

Catapult now has many pro and college teams as clients in the U.S. Technology allows the tracking and interpretation (the most important human part) of athletes’ data. Many other companies are getting involved with the growing area of sports analytics.

I started communicating with Dr. Wagner (from the above video) many years ago. He started Sparta from scratch and is a leading thinker. Another scientist, whom I believe was actually the first person in the US to hold the title of Sport Scientist with a pro team (Mariners) is Dr. Marcus Elliott and his company P3.

And there are many other sports analytics companies, including Omega Wave, Fatigue Science and Kitman Labs.

Tracking practices/games, weight room performances, and recovery (i.e., sleep, nutrition) creates a need for people to make sense of all the information. You would think U.S. universities would be interested in the growing area of sports analytics. Here’s an interview with Patrick Ward whom the Seattle Seahawks hired as a Sports Science Analyst last summer. I think Patrick does a great job describing what he does in a non-technical manner.

The Dolphins recently hired Dr. Wayne Diesel from South Africa as a sport scientist. Similarly, last year the 49ers hired Dr. Fergus Connolly from Ireland as a sport scientist.

Many teams that hire sport scientists look abroad for the expertise. They almost have to because nobody trains sport scientists in the US except Dr. Stone et al. at ETSU!

Chip Kelly seemed to start this at Oregon when he hired James Hanisch from Australia. Kelly moved to the Eagles and brought in Shaun Huls as Sport Science Coordinator, Josh Hingst as Head Strength & Conditioning Coach and recently brought in James Hanisch in from Oregon as a Sport Science Load/Data Analyst. Russells’ Blog guest poster and CrossFit Hyponatremia Conference organizer and presenter Dr. Sandra Godek also consults for the Eagles.

CrossFit Football SME John Welbourn played for the Eagles: http://www.prosportsfix.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Welbourn3237A.jpg

Hingst and I spoke at universities and at Spain’s Olympic Training Center in 2004. After Hingst and I each presented on training and nutrition, a university Department Head and another professor invited me and Hingst into a meeting room. The Spanish professors explained they received some money from their government for sport science. They wanted to pursue an exchange program with U.S. universities in sport science. Hingst was the Head Assistant Strength & Conditioning Coach at Florida State at that time. I don’t think either Hingst or I had the heart to tell them that we didn’t do any sport science at universities in the U.S. The academic and athletic departments at U.S. universities do not work in cooperation.

With the success of the integrated academic and athletic sport science program at ETSU and the growing area of sports analytics why don’t more U.S. universities implement sport science programs? Who is better equipped to interpret analytical data on athletes, a computer nerd or somebody highly-trained in sport science? You may need the computer folks to set up a database, but you also need practical expertise to sort through all the information and give meaningful advice quickly to coaches and other team personnel. Why don’t the NSCA’s ERP schools do anything in sport science?

In the final part of this series, I’ll focus on the need to look at anything coming out of a company-funded so-called “Sports Science Institute” with a skeptical eye. As you may guess, company-funded research often comes with conflicts of interest and “strings” attached (Slide 69).

About the Author: John T. Weatherly has undergraduate and graduate degrees in exercise science. He was a research assistant to the former Head of Sports Physiology for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) and has helped with conditioning programs for athletes in Olympic sports as well as professional baseball, college football and an NBA player. In the 90’s, John published and reviewed articles for the NSCA and was an NSCA media contact on the sport of baseball. He helped initiate the first study on a rotary inertia exercise device at the University of Southern California (USC) and has consulted with the exercise industry on various topics, including vibration.

Editor’s Note: We are honored to present this message from CrossFit Inc. Founder and CEO Greg Glassman.

Last March, Richard Beddie, president of the International Confederation of Registers for Exercise Professionals (ICREPs), stated in NZ Stuff News that “CrossFit has resulted in six deaths overseas and rendered an Australian man paraplegic.” This was false. CrossFit contacted Stuff and alerted its reporters. Stuff removed some of Beddie’s defamation.

Next, Beddie went on TV One, the New Zealand government’s TV network, and implied CrossFit trainers were responsible for female urinary incontinence.

After these two pieces ran, Beddie contacted CrossFit with a very straightforward business proposition. If we’d join his registry, he’d be willing to learn about CrossFit and would then work internationally to help us avoid some of the bad press we’d been getting. The price offered to CrossFit Inc. equated to US$300,000 a year in Mr. Beddie’s New Zealand, and $30 million annually for global protection. That’s $30 million a year to learn what we are doing and help us avoid bad press. That was the proposition. We declined participation.

After CrossFit rejected his offer, Beddie appeared in the press questioning if CrossFit trainers “meet standards that the industry has agreed on.”

Hypothetically, what are the requirements to meet the industry’s standards? The answer: each trainer would pay Mr. Beddie NZ$400 annually. In exchange, Mr. Beddie would put them in his register.

Fed up with Beddie’s defamation and unwilling to pay extortion money, CrossFit filed suit against Beddie and ICREPs. 

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) are partners with Mr. Beddie in ICREPs, through the U.S. Registry of Exercise Professionals (USREPS). These organizations have all engaged in long-term, systematic, regular, and collaborative fraud—fraud that is scientific, academic, and tortious—in their representatives’ collective statements, publications, press releases, and in a paid public-relations campaign against CrossFit. We’ve documented this effort publicly and have filed suit against the NSCA in a United States District Court. Much in the manner of Beddie, the NSCA altered a study to include injuries that never occurred and fed it to media including Outside Magazine, which dutifully asked “Is CrossFit Killing Us?” in its December 2013 issue. This came up as the top Google search return on CrossFit for months. For the record, the American ICREPs counterpart began its tortious assaults on CrossFit ahead of its president in New Zealand. For $30 million we can make this stop.

I think it warrants mentioning that ICREPs membership roster includes not a single organization teaching, training, studying, or knowledgeable in, functional movement. Oddly enough, they’re each resolutely committed to hyperinsulemic fare. It’s impossible not to ask why that is.

CrossFit has presented a formidable challenge to a status quo that unfailingly and for decades produced record-breaking obesity and disease. CrossFit, an elegant and common-sense program of functional movement and a balanced diet, has had the single greatest positive impact on Americans’ health in modern times. We are spearheading a reformation of the fitness industry. As a conservative estimate, CrossFitters completed 300,000,000 workouts in 2014. CrossFitters have shed millions of pounds of body fat. In 2015 alone, CrossFitters will complete another 500,000,000 workouts. This will all take place absent the deaths and injuries publicly claimed by the ICREPs partners in the U.S. and abroad.

Beyond the obvious monetary opportunity to extort CrossFit and its affiliates for $30 million every year sits the threat we pose to a trillion-dollar industry entirely dependent on the near-universal avoidance of functional movement as exercise and the extinction of balanced meals from the American landscape. I won’t give you the names; just find the ACSM’s and the NSCA’s largest financial contributors.

It’s not out of fear that I don’t mention these giants and their threats to global health; it’s that you won’t believe it unless you find it for yourself. What could possibly be the well-organized big-dollar commitment to a diet that kills and exercise that does essentially nothing? Research for yourself and report back.

I don’t want to pay the $30 million. We could do it. A score of super-lucrative rent-seeking options could buy our protection, but over time the pressure would build until you mavericks, one at a time, quit with the meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds and got back on the damn machines where exercise supposedly belongs. Anyone interested in CrossFit-Gatorade?

I’m not budging, and I’ll commit our resources to the very last drop to fight for the right of the independent owner-operator to speak openly and honestly about human movement, and eating, without fear of repercussion regardless of whether you are flying the CrossFit flag or not. We have terrific positions in our cases in American and Kiwi courts. The Kiwis have a great reputation for abhorring fraud and corruption—especially in fitness and health. The work of your detractors has been clumsy: It’s as though these organizations are so besotted with soda-pop dollars that they never thought anyone would sue them for blatant tortious interference and business fraud.

But, in the end, only one thing matters, and it’s that we tell the truth—only and always—and commit the best that we can muster to protecting the well-being of all people. That’s what it means to me to lead this community.

– Greg Glassman, CrossFit Inc. Founder and CEO

Greg Glassman speaks to Auckland, New Zealand affiliate owners about Richard Beddie and ICREPs.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Eva Selhub has practiced medicine for 20 years and is an Instructor at Harvard Medical School. When Dr. Selhub heard about USREPS’ scheme to criminalize CrossFit affiliates, she immediately opposed it. She submitted the following article in response to USREPS.

Dr. Eva Selhub, Harvard Medical School.

I recently found out that the US Registry of Exercise Professionals (USREPS) has gone on a national campaign to attack any personal trainer who is not certified with the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) or other similar organizations. They are pointing the gun mostly at CrossFit trainers who have taken CrossFit courses and certifications. Interestingly, USREPS is focusing its attack on personal trainers only, not group exercise. And USREPS categorizes CrossFit coaches as the former, though they teach in groups.

USREPS’ sample legislation mandates that a CrossFit trainer who teaches someone how to squat without ACSM, NSCA or other similar certifications would pay a fine, or face jail time.

Any person who violates Code Section 43-XX-7 shall be guilty of practicing as a personal fitness trainer without a current registration and shall be punished as a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature by the imposition of a fine not to exceed $XX, or confinement for not more than XX months, or both …

Huh? Seriously? What really is USREPS’ motivation, I wonder?

They claim that CrossFit is unsafe and causes more injuries than other sports, yet there is no proof that this is the case. I doubt they have acknowledged the literature showing the growing amount of injuries suffered from individuals participating in yoga.

Personally, I have gotten injured more often taking salsa lessons, doing Zumba (I’m not so coordinated), and doing power yoga and flow yoga. Oh wait, group classes don’t count.

Well what about the six personal trainers who led me to do exercises that I specifically told them I couldn’t do because of a back injury, who convinced me to do them anyway, resulting in me being incapacitated for three to six months at a time?

What I didn’t realize back then is that anyone can actually get certified as a personal trainer by taking an online course and then taking an exam without any one-on-one time, training or coaching. Supposedly, the person who does spend six weeks reading the material and just barely passing the exam, is also fully capable of understanding back injuries like mine and able to keep people like me fit safely.

Of course many (and hopefully most) personal trainers have had years of training and studying, but only Washington D.C. has passed a fitness licensure law. My CrossFit affiliate’s instruction not only did not get me injured, but also helped me heal my 30-year-old back injury. So why is USREPS targeting CrossFit trainers?

I just don’t get it.

Dr. Eva Selhub at CrossFit Newton.

We live in a world where obesity and the sedentary lifestyle are an epidemic. Finally, there exists a movement that is getting people to be enthusiastic, not only about being fit, but about being part of a community and eating healthy.

I found these words written by CrossFit 858 owner Mark Lin about one of his members. They brought me to tears and reminding me exactly why I love CrossFit:

You see, Jerry isn’t just fighting a battle against obesity. He is fighting stage IV lymphoma, or in simple terms: cancer. I met Jerry by chance one day, heard his story, and knew I needed to do something to help him. I offered him a free membership at my gym….We also held a fundraiser to help Jerry with his living and medical expenses … From an athletic training perspective, yes I scale Jerry greatly … There are thousands of CrossFit coaches like me, with the same mindset and same mission: to help people become healthier and do so safely and effectively.

“Yes!” I wanted to shout when reading this. This is not an unusual circumstance in the CrossFit world, where proceeds of competitions and retail regularly go to a charitable cause, and where coaches are often more interested in seeing their athletes excel and thrive, than in making loads of money.

Jerry Sandoval at CrossFit 858: http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/September_Compilation_REV.pdf

Has any sport ever done that at this level? High fructose corn syrup is taxing our health care system more than injuries that come from CrossFit. I don’t see anyone lobbying against the manufacturers who use this ingredient with such big guns as the ones pointing at CrossFit.

It seems to me that such organizations are not really interested in the welfare of people, in helping our society achieve healthy, in motivating people to help one another in all aspects of life, but in making loads of money.

Honestly, CrossFit has grown faster than anyone could predict and yes, there are some L1 coaches out there who are less experienced than others, just like other personal trainers. So why not work together to create a better system so that coaches and trainers alike are more educated? Why advocate for punitive measures when there is the possibility of making something great even greater?

Oh right. Money.

Why is the ACSM partnering with Coca-Cola and attacking CrossFit? http://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainability/meet-our-partners-american-college-of-sports-medicine-exercise-is-medicine

Apparently, USREPS’ long-term goal is to insert all fitness training into the health care system, whereby doctors will refer their clients to fitness trainers and healthcare coverage will pay for the fitness training. And of course, only those trainers with the appropriate licensure would be able to practice in this scenario.

Honestly, I laughed out loud when I heard about this. Really? Have you met with your doctor lately? How much does he or she actually know about fitness or nutrition? How good is your insurance when it comes to covering preventive health modalities like massage, acupuncture, chiropractors, or a nutritionist?

And how is USREPS going to take care of doctors when they get sued for sending someone to a personal trainer who has led that individual to being injured? As a physician, I wouldn’t want to take on that liability along with everything else I have to worry about being sued for.

I can’t help but think that this is yet another example of how big money has no interest in seeing a healthier world.

Does Coca-Cola still have a place in medicine? http://www.madmenart.com/vintage-advertising/detail-of-coca-cola-hospital-nurses-1948/

Our healthcare system doesn’t work, so why push fitness into the healthcare system? Why deter people from doing something they love by punishing them? It makes no sense. I understand the need to educate coaches, but I do not understand what need there is to punish them or to make them get licenses that are meaningless.

Well, I am going to find out for myself what the CrossFit L1 course is all about as I plan on taking it myself. Will I go to jail once I pass my L1 and teach someone how to squat?

About the Author: Board Certified in Internal Medicine, Dr. Eva is on staff at Harvard Medical School and is a Clinical Associate of the world renowned Benson Henry Institute for Mind-Body Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital. For more information, please see here website, DrSelhub.com.

If you’re like most people, you probably believe that dehydration causes heat stroke. But is there any evidence to support that idea? Or is it just a well-marketed myth? This spring, Gatorade’s American Football webinar made a shocking confession,

“And during intense exercise in the heat the risk of dehydration obviously can influence performance, but we also believe, although evidence has not shown, we believe it can increase the risk of exertional heat illnesses”

In other words, Gatorade finally confessed that there is no evidence that dehydration causes heat stroke, or other heat illnesses. Gatorade’s scientists also admitted that “thirst is a great guide for a person to have an overall indication of their hydration status.”

It was very striking to see Gatorade admit what Drs. Sandra Godek and Tim Noakes have stated for years. It’s too bad that two high school football players died in one month before Gatorade backed down from its hyperhydration science.

Gatorade tells high school athletes that its product will prevent heat stroke. There’s no evidence for that myth.

In our last article on Gatorade’s hydration confessions, we mentioned,

Gatorade’s 2015 confession is not enough to make things right. A private webinar and an accompanying article can’t undo untold numbers of billboards and magazine ads

So will Gatorade’s multi-billion-dollar marketing campaign finally correct the record? Will Gatorade ever spend as much money to prevent hyper-hydration, as they spent promoting it? We now have an answer.

No. Gatorade will not adjust its advertising to match hydration science.

Check out this press release from Gatorade’s “Beat the Heat” campaign. It states,

Research shows that dehydration or poor hydration increases the risk for heat illness.

If research actually does support Gatorade’s allegation, why did Gatorade’s own webinar say that “evidence has not shown” that dehydration increases the “risk for heat illness?”

Source: http://www.newyorkjets.com/assets/images/articles/080510-beat-the-heat.jpg

The Gatorade press release cited one study to support its claim that dehydration increases the risk for heat illness. 

The study Gatorade’s press release cited does not show in any way that dehydration increases the risk for heat illness. The study’s experiment doesn’t even investigate that relationship. In fact, the study Gatorade cited contradicts the very reason Gatorade cited it. The study actually says,

The question remains whether improved indices of hydration status lower the risk of heat illness and enhance performance in young players

Gatorade’s hydration advertising has dangerously contradicted science before. But now Gatorade’s Beat the Heat Campaign is embarrassingly contradicting the Gatorade Sports Science Institute’s own scientists.

How long will Gatorade hesitate before it corrects this self-contradiction? And will Gatorade finally correct its advertising, or will Gatorade tell its scientists to fall in line with its marketing campaign?

One of the most pervasive and harmful myths about CrossFit is one that many of us have readily accepted- CrossFit is relatively safe, but only when its constituent movements are performed with correct technique. On the surface this seems totally reasonable, but it has become the false premise upon which many serious claims about the safety of CrossFit rest.

I believe that this myth is borne from an attempt to reconcile an apparent tension between two major concepts taught by CrossFit. For the sake of this article, I will use the common definition of technique as whatever movement an athletes uses to accomplish a task. Though less well defined, I will consider good technique to be the movement which optimizes the athlete’s mechanical advantage, and bad technique can be considered any deviation from that.

The first of these concepts is that functional movements (defined as those movements uniquely capable of producing power) are inherently safe. The second concept is the importance of striving to move with near perfect technique. This emphasis on good technique is made repeatedly during the CrossFit Level 1 Course. This is for two important reasons: First, good technique is vital for efficiency and efficacy of our program’s results. Second, good technique aids in mitigating risk of injury.

Herein lies the tension. If functional movements are safe, why do we need to do them correctly in order to prevent injury? It should not be a point of contention to claim that all forms of exercise carry some level of risk. This makes terms like “safe,” and “dangerous,” useless without qualification. When we say that functional movements are safe, we mean that they are safe relative to performing non-functional movements, and certainly safer than doing nothing at all. We also point out that these movements are unavoidable in daily life, so while training them is optional, performing them is not.

Our injury myth answers the apparent tension stated above by admitting that functional movements (and CrossFit) are safe, but only as long as technique is good. The myth also retains the important emphasis on technique by holding that when technique goes south, functional movements become dangerous.

While we have acknowledged that there is a relationship between poor technique and injury, we need to be careful about what that relationship is if we want to be accurate. The assumption underlying our myth is that poor technique is a necessary cause of injury.

Yet common sense tells us this must be an oversimplification. We all know someone who does CrossFit in his garage, performing nearly every movement with poor technique, and yet claiming he is fittest and healthiest he has ever been. Most people also know someone who suffers from an injury that occurred when his or her technique appeared correct.

A survey of literature on the subject also seems to reject this oversimplified view of injury. In their paper Understanding Injury Mechanisms: A Key Component of Preventing Injuries in Sport, authors Bahr and Krosshaug describe the complexity of contributing factors that precipitate injury:

“…although the injury may appear to have been caused by a single inciting event, it may result from a complex interaction between internal and external risk factors. Internal factors such as age, sex, and body composition may influence the risk of sustaining injuries, predisposing the athlete to injury, and are therefore by definition risk factors. In addition, external factors such as shoe traction and floor friction may modify injury risk, making the athlete even more susceptible to injury. It is the presence of both internal and external risk factors that renders the athlete susceptible to injury, but the mere presence of these risk factors is not sufficient to produce injury.”

The authors go on to describe the inciting event that causes  injury as “the final link in the chain.” In an effort to combine this epidemiological view of injury causation with a more biomechanical view, they offer the following model:

Regardless of the accuracy of Bahr and Krosshaug’s model, the concept proves useful. In light of the inherent complexity of injury precipitation, the view that poor technique alone (biomechanical factors) is a necessary or even sufficient cause of injury seems indefensible.

Interestingly, the field of ergonomics and the study of workplace injury proves to be a useful source of data. For example, interdisciplinary research scientist Dr. Shrawan Kumar has published some of the most extensive treatments of the subject of injury. In his book Selected Theories of Musculoskeletal Injury Causation Kumar writes that the precipitation of injury is “..an interactive process between genetic, morphological, psychosocial and biomechanical factors.” Kumar goes on to outline the extent to which these different variables can be combined prior to an injury event, offering a model that is strikingly similar to that described by his peers in sports medicine.

S. Kumar, “Selected theories of musculoskeletal injury causation”

While different models of ergonomic injury place more or less weight on contributing factors such as biomechanics and genetics, all current models stress the complexity and unpredictability of injury. From this we see that while biomechanical factors such as technique can contribute to training injury, they are likely not ever the singular cause of an injury. These models also neatly explain the coach’s real world observations that:

1. An overall correlation between poor technique and increased likelihood of injury seems to exist, yet;

2. Some athletes train with poor technique for years without experiencing injury;

3. Some athletes are injured during training in which no discernible breakdown in technique occurs.

Yet when someone argues that ‘poor technique causes injury’ he usually does not mean what his words imply. When presented with the complex nature of training injury, he will usually fall back to something like ‘training repeatedly with poor technique, over time, will lead to injury.’

This is a much more reasonable claim, but it begs the question: Just how dramatically does the chance of injury increase when an athlete trains with poor technique?

At this time, we know of three academic studies of CrossFit injury rates. Two have been published in peer-reviewed journals (Girodano and Hak). The third was conducted by Dr. Yuri Feito and we expect to see it published soon. All three studies found CrossFit’s injury rate to be below or equal to that of general fitness training (2.4-3.1 injuries per 1000 hours of training). These studies were all solicited surveys completed by a broad array of CrossFit participants.

How do we interpret these relatively low injury rates in light of the hypothesis that poor technique dramatically increases the risk of injury? The only suitable explanation is that only a very tiny percentage of those surveyed were training with poor technique.

But is this a probable explanation? As someone who has visited hundreds of CrossFit gyms and trained thousands of  relatively new CrossFit athletes, I can say with certainty that there are many, many people training CrossFit regularly with poor technique.  Even CrossFit’s best athletes occasionally train with less than perfect form.

How do we reconcile this observation with the fact that CrossFit’s injury rates are so low? Only by abandoning the belief that poor technique is inherently dangerous. While poor technique might be a contributing factor to injury, the fact is the available injury data doesn’t support the idea that it is as dangerous as some claim it to be.

Our myth has been dispelled.

“CrossFit is relatively safe but only when its constituent movements are performed with correct technique,” is clearly an oversimplified statement that should be replaced with this one: “CrossFit is relatively safe even when performed with poor technique, but it is safer and more effective when performed with good technique.”

Why is this so important? The myth that poor technique makes CrossFit dangerous is a key assumption underlying the argument that the CrossFit Level 1 Certificate Course is an insufficient credential for opening an affiliate, the argument that CrossFit Trainers need to be licensed by the state, and the argument that only elite athletes should be doing CrossFit. We will look at this flawed argument in greater detail in Part 2.

In Part 1 of this two-part series, we looked at the myth that CrossFit is only safe when it is performed with good technique. As it turns out, our best models of the causality of musculoskeletal injury and the available data on CrossFit injury rates make this belief totally untenable. We concluded by stating “CrossFit is relatively safe even when performed with poor technique, but it is safer and more effective when performed with good technique.”

The importance of this distinction might not be obvious at first, but this post will serve to debunk some critical arguments against CrossFit trainers and our affiliate model.

The most basic of these arguments is that the CrossFit Level 1 Certificate Course is an insufficient credential for opening an affiliate. Admittedly, this is a more intelligent formulation of the criticism usually voiced: “CrossFit will let anyone become an affiliate,” or “You can’t learn anything about how to safely coach in a weekend course.”

These critics are making two basic assumptions, one of which you should recognize. First, they believe the CF-L1 doesn’t ensure all new  trainers can recognize or correct poor technique. Second, they believe that doing CrossFit with poor technique is dangerous. It follows logically from these assumptions that some unknown number of incompetent CrossFit trainers out there causing serious injury to clients. While this argument is often seen as a critique of the affiliate model- at minimum, you must hold a level 1 CrossFit Certificate to open an affiliate-  it also continues to serve as the backbone of the public campaign for state-level trainer licensing.

In responding to those who say the Level 1 is “not enough,” it’s important to acknowledge that the first premise is actually true. The CrossFit Level 1 Certificate Course is not designed to ensure CF-L1 trainers can identify and correct every error that can occur in training. Nicole Carroll, CrossFit Inc. Director of Certification and Training, stated “Successful completion of the Level 1 grants attendees a basic understanding of the fundamentals necessary to train others responsibly.” (“CrossFit Trainer Education and Certification: New Programs and a New Structure”). As an entry-level course, the Level 1 does exactly what it is designed to. Ultimately, trainers will become proficient in identifying and correcting training faults in one way only: years of practice.

In other words, the limitations of the CF-L1 are openly acknowledged by CrossFit, which recognizes the foolishness of the expectation to produce perfectly competent trainers absent daily exposure to the demands of training real athletes.This is also why CrossFit offers multiple levels of credentialing above and beyond the Level 1, all of which require significant pre-requisite experience.

The concern that CF-L1 trainers are ill-equipped to safely work in and open affiliates is again born of the myth that training with poor technique is dangerous. Since we have already debunked that myth, we could move right along, but a few more points are worth mentioning here.

First, the limitations of the CF-L1 should not be confused with a disregard for the importance of training with good technique. Worth noting is the fact that this two-day course contains over six hours of hands-on instruction- something no other externally accredited fitness-industry course provides. In his 2005 article “Virtuosity,” Greg Glassman expounded on the need to relentlessly pursue mastery of basic techniques. This pursuit is based in both a desire to improve performance and a concern for athlete safety, and yet virtuosity cannot be achieved without training to the point that technical faults are exposed. In many ways, it is the constant tension between allowing technical errors to develop and striving to fix them that causes so much confusion on this subject.

Second, there are variations of our myth disguised as alternative explanations of CrossFit’s apparently low injury rate. For example, one might agree that training with poor technique is not dangerous but suggest that training with inappropriate speed, load, reps or while fatigued does indeed make CrossFit dangerous. While this view might sound like a new challenge, it simply falls apart when we try to reconcile it with available CrossFit injury data. Very low injury rates dictate one of two conclusions: Almost no one is training this way or this style of training is not as dangerous as the critic thinks it is.

Third, because we acknowledge that good technique is important for both performance and safety, shouldn’t we still require more from those who wish to become affiliate owners? Why not make the Certified CrossFit Trainer credential
(CCFT or CF-L3) mandatory for anyone who wants to coach others? Putting aside the established fact that there is no evidence of any systemic problems with injury in CrossFit, this policy would have tremendous negative impact on the growth of our community and our society. By excluding inexperienced trainers from opening CrossFit affiliates, we would create an enormous barrier of entry to affiliation in areas that are not already densely populated with experienced CrossFit trainers. This, in turn, makes it less likely that poorer, less developed areas of the world would ever have access to a CrossFit affiliate.

Similarly, state-level licensure of fitness trainers would likely limit the supply of legal fitness trainers while allowing pro-licensure organizations such as the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) the satisfaction of charging the public more for fitness training.

Should CrossFit Inc. restrict the growth of CrossFit affiliates by requiring additional credentials and experience on top of the current CF-L1 and application process? Should special-interest groups like the ACSM limit who can enter the profession by harnessing the regulatory power of government? Or do we set minimal yet effective barriers to entry that allow new trainers to cut their training teeth in a world where over 300 million Type 2 diabetics could be helped with improved fitness?

If you’ve been relieved of the false belief that CrossFit is dangerous in the hands of inexperienced trainers, and if you are genuinely invested in making the world a healthier, fitter place, the choice is obvious.

Originally published in English on February 20th, 2014.

Translated by CrossFit L1 Staff member Gabriel García Merlos

Gatorade y Coca Cola son los “ socios corporativos oficiales” del American College of Sports Medicine’s (Colegio Americano de la Medicina del Deporte). Es extraño que el mayor manufacturero de agua-azúcar en el mundo patrocine una compañía de Salud y Fitness, pero la historia no termina ahí. Los dólares de La Gran Soda corrompieron la ciencia sobre hidratación del ACSM (por sus siglas en inglés). Puedes leer la historia completa en el excelente libro de Tim Noakes “Waterlogged.”

Pero Gatorade no paro al financiar la ciencia corrupta sobre hidratación del American College of Sport Medicine –ellos distorsionaron y mal interpretaron las directrices del ACSM también. En su artículo, “Lobbyist for the Sports drink industry,” Noakes y Dale Speedy notaron eso:

“tan recientemente como Enero/Febrero del 2002 (ej, 11 años después de que se probó que el EAH (siglas en inglés) fue causado por beber demasiado), El GSSI (Gatorade Sports Science Institute) colocó publicidad en la Revista de Corredores de Nueva York, y es de suponer que en algún otro lugar: con un espacio publicitario que declaraba: ‘Las investigaciones muestran que tu cuerpo necesita al menos 40oz. de fluido cada hora (ej, 1200 ml por hora) o tu desempeño puede sufrir’. Esta conclusión alega estar basada en el resultado de ‘miles de estudios’ conducidos por los científicos del ‘ Gatorade Sports Science Institute’ el cual ha ‘estudiado esto por más de 15 años en sus instalaciones de investigación a lo largo del país’.”

La publicidad de la Revista de Corredores de Nueva York también corrió en la revista de corredores North West, y es de suponer que en otros lugares: http://faculty.washington.edu/crowth…confuse2.shtml

Contrario a la distorsión de Gatorade, en 1996 las recomendaciones del ACSM utilizaron 1.2 L/hora como máximo, no un valor mínimo, con la advertencia de que un corredor solo debía tomar tanto como pudiera tolerar. La recomendación de 1996 era excesiva, y en 2007 la recomendación del ACSM implícitamente reconoce eso. Aún así Gatorade no estaba satisfecho con cuanta hidratación se recomendaban en los lineamientos en 1996.

Si el ACSM objetó a sus patrocinadores platinum por la mal interpretación de sus directrices, no he encontrado registro de ello. Un cuerpo científico ético habría alzado la voz.

La necesidad de remover la perniciosa influencia de Gatorade en la ciencia del ejercicio no podría ser más clara. Tal vez el ACSM, sin Gatorade, es rescatable. Tal vez.

P.D. Si quieres aprender más acerca de CrossFit exponiendo la ciencia del ejercicio de Gatorade, revisa el tablero de discusión que Greg Glassman inició: http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=86218

Editor’s Note: We are pleased to present this guest post by Dr. Lon Kilgore.

iStockphoto.com licensed to Lon Kilgore.

When people go to a gym, who are they expecting to work with? When someone programs and supervises exercise for a customer in the gym, what do we call that person? When we evaluate the training curriculum for different names used for exercise occupations, are they different in intent and content? What is the scope of practice for the varying occupational names in the industry?

Let’s keep this simple, relatively, by examining the names used by the public, academia, and the government to identify people who deliver fitness training.

Plumber, electrician, barber, each of these occupational names provides an instantaneous recognition of what those in that occupation do. The name of an occupation or profession is important as it affects public recognition and informs proposed government legislation. But ask someone on the street if there is a difference between a personal trainer, a fitness trainer, a personal fitness trainer, an athletic trainer, a group exercise instructor, a strength and conditioning specialist, a health fitness specialist, an inclusive fitness trainer, an aerobics instructor, an exercise physiologist, a health coach, and any number of other names used by fitness and academic institutions (often to describe the same worker). At best the public or a politician might suggest there might be a difference, but they likely cannot articulate any meaningful definition of any of these occupational titles.

Good enough for government work

If we look in government documents we see a similar, but codified, inability to articulate a clear difference between these occupations. For example the Bureau of Labor Statistics defines these exercise related occupations:

Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instructors 39-9031

“Instruct or coach groups or individuals in exercise activities. Demonstrate techniques and form, observe participants, and explain to them corrective measures necessary to improve their skills. Excludes teachers classified in 25-0000 Education, Training, and Library Occupations. Excludes “Coaches and Scouts” (27-2022) and “Athletic Trainers” (29-9091).” There are 241,000 workers currently employed under this classification with the primary employers being recreation industries, civic/social organizations, and schools.

Coaches and Scouts 27-2022

“Instruct or coach groups or individuals in the fundamentals of sports. Demonstrate techniques and methods of participation. May evaluate athletes’ strengths and weaknesses as possible recruits or to improve the athletes’ technique to prepare them for competition. Those required to hold teaching degrees should be reported in the appropriate teaching category. Excludes “Athletic Trainers” (29-9091).” There are 211,760 workers currently employed under this classification with the primary employers being schools, recreation industries, academia, and civic/social organizations.

Athletic Trainers 29-9091

“Evaluate and advise individuals to assist recovery from or avoid athletic-related injuries or illnesses, or maintain peak physical fitness. May provide first aid or emergency care.” There are 22,400 workers currently employed under this classification with the primary employers being academia, clinics, hospitals, recreation industries, and schools.

Exercise Physiologist 29-1128

“Assess, plan, or implement fitness programs that include exercise or physical activities such as those designed to improve cardiorespiratory function, body composition, muscular strength, muscular endurance, or flexibility. Excludes “Physical Therapists” (29-1123), “Athletic Trainers” (29-9091), and “Fitness Trainers and Aerobic Instructors” (39-9031).” There are 6,600 workers currently employed under this classification with the primary employers being hospitals, clinics, and physician offices.

These definitions seem to lump apples and oranges. And only two out of the four exercise-related occupational definitions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics include reference to the term “fitness,” implying that the worker’s efforts reside in the area of client fitness. Those two occupations are athletic trainer and exercise physiologist. Specifically athletic trainers “evaluate and advise individuals to maintain peak physical fitness” as one of the four duties listed. Exercise physiologists “assess, plan, or implement fitness programs that include exercise or physical activities such as those designed to improve cardiorespiratory function, body composition, muscular strength, muscular endurance, or flexibility” as the full description. This is an interesting observation as in actual practice both occupations have primary duties in rehabilitation of injured or diseased populations.

Within the descriptions of the other two occupations, coach and fitness trainer there is no mention of fitness. Rather, these occupations are said to “instruct or coach groups or individuals in the fundamentals of sports” or “instruct or coach groups or individuals in exercise activities” with the intent to improve skill (sport or exercise). Is it not odd that these two occupations, where delivering fitness improvement is as central as teaching exercise skills, do not have fitness clearly indicated in their descriptions?

What we have here is a failure to communicate … with anyone

This is not an isolated instance of government agency misunderstanding but is systemic, with varied and overlapping descriptions common in every aspect of fitness education and the fitness industry. In higher academia, the symbiosis of the professoriate and exercise organizations has led to the creation of the following definitions:

ACSM Personal Trainer – “involved in developing and implementing an individualized approach to exercise leadership in healthy populations and/or those individuals with medical clearance to exercise.” (ACSM Personal Trainer page)

ACSM Group Exercise Instructor – “are familiar and flexible with various exercise techniques, and can supervise participants or lead instructional sessions.” (ACSM Group Exercise Instructor page)

ACSM Exercise Physiologist – “performs pre-participation health screenings, conducts physical fitness assessments, interprets results, develops exercise prescriptions, and applies behavioral and motivational strategies to apparently healthy individuals and individuals with medically controlled diseases and health conditions to support clients in adopting and maintaining healthy lifestyle behaviors.” (ACSM Exercise Physiologist page)

ACSM Clinical Exercise Physiologist – “conducts pre-participation health screening, maximal and submaximal graded exercise tests, and performs strength, flexibility and body composition tests for patients and clients challenged with cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic diseases and disorders, as well as with apparently healthy populations.” (ACSM Clinical Exercise Physiologist page)

ACSM Registered Clinical Exercise Physiologist – “utilize scientific rationale to design, implement and supervise exercise programming for those with chronic diseases, conditions and/or physical shortcomings.” (ACSM Registered Exercise Physiologist page)

NSCA Personal Trainer – “using an individualized approach, assess, motivate, educate and train clients regarding their personal health and fitness needs.” (NSCA Personal Trainer page)

NATA Athletic Trainer – “health care professionals who collaborate with physicians to provide preventative services, emergency care, clinical diagnosis, therapeutic intervention and rehabilitation of injuries and medical conditions.” (NATA Terminology page).

Note that athletic trainers take great pains to communicate that they are not personal trainers. On their website they specifically state “Athletic training is often confused with personal training. There is, however, a large difference in the education, skillset, job duties and patients of an athletic trainer and a personal trainer. Athletic trainers provide physical medicine, rehabilitative and preventative services.” They propose to deliver medicine, not fitness.

One thing seems to emerge from the differing definitions coming from the ACSM. There are six differing names of occupations that all deliver similar outputs. They just deliver exercise and fitness to different populations, based on the presence and severity of disease. Personal Trainers and Group Exercise Instructors work with disease-free individuals. Exercise Physiologists work with disease-free individuals and those with diagnosed but managed disease states. Clinical Exercise Physiologists work with those with or at risk for developing cardiovascular, pulmonary or metabolic disease. Registered Clinical Exercise Physiologists work with individuals with chronic disease. This stratification is not reflected in any government definition nor does the government, the ACSM, nor the NSCA share common terminology and definitions.

So it is clear that these organizations, who are inextricably linked with academia, and who portend to represent their membership effectively, promulgate definitions that do not match those of government agencies. If these organizations cannot effectively lobby to change, or have ignored the need for change in the definitions used by the government, can they be trusted to accurately represent personal trainers in larger and impactful issues? Have they lost connection (or ever had one) with those working in the trenches of fitness delivery?

Although these groups claim to represent the profession of personal training, do they? The ACSM certifies just over 5% of all active personal trainers (BLS “fitness trainers and aerobics instructors”). The NSCA states that they currently certify 40,000 individuals in their four certification paths. If it can be assumed that, as with the ACSM, approximately half of the certificates held are for personal training, then the NSCA represents just over 8% of all active personal trainers.

Education and compromise

The ACSM stipulates in their certification system that the only knowledge requisites for becoming a personal trainer or group exercise instructor working with healthy populations is to have a high school education, a current CPR card, and pass their written test. The NSCA similarly has such criteria. Both organizations do not require any education, prior experience (volunteer or paid), or demonstration of skill to become a bona fide personal trainer.

It should be intuitive to anyone that to do a job correctly, there must be training that precedes a worker commencing that job. A fry cook at a chain burger joint undergoes didactic and practical training before they produce their first burger or fry for a customer (this is well known to even our children). So it should be intuitive that personal trainers, an occupation that attends to non-diseased and non-injured customers, does require education that establishes knowledge and tangible skills relative to delivering fitness. But how much?

At one point in recent history, the ACSM required a spectrum of educational preparation. None required for Personal Trainer; an associate’s degree required for Health/Fitness Instructor (a now defunct certification) dealing with healthy individuals and those with disease but that are medically cleared for participation; and a bachelor’s degree for its clinically based occupational certifications. This is not a bad idea. The more complex the nature of fitness delivery, by virtue of the level of disease dealt with by the trainer, the more education required. Vocational education for personal trainers who work with healthy populations should be deliverable in less than a single year of commercially-delivered vocational training, on-the-job training, or college-delivered instruction. This duration is independent of what exercise system is being taught as long as the curriculum has direct relevance to the occupation of personal training. The addition of working with pathological populations requires further specialized training delivered via additional college or university education.

This concept seems to be coherent with the categorization of fitness trainers and exercise physiologists by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The occupational designations used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics would suggest that personal trainers are not health care workers. The identifier 39- indicates that the occupation is a “Personal Care and Service Occupation”. This suggests, in the government’s view, that delivering fitness in the gym is a service. Under this broad category we also find carnival and casino gaming supervisors and workers, projectionists, ushers, ticket takers, embalmers, barbers and cosmetologists, concierges, flight attendants, child care workers and others. Virtually all of the occupations included under this identifier do not require university education, rather they require short to medium term commercially-available training.

Photo Credit – Helen Jeffrey.

Exercise physiologists and athletic trainers however are listed as health care workers, falling under identifier 29- comprised of “Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations.” They are different from personal trainers in duties performed in the workplace and in the equipment used as part of those duties. The link to health and medicine of this category (29-) is apparent as it includes dentists, dieticians, optometrists, pharmacists, physicians and surgeons, nurses, and a variety of therapists, medical laboratory technicians, and paramedics. The large majority of occupations under this identifier deal with diseased and injured populations and require university degrees, multiple in some instances.

iStockphoto.com licensed to Lon Kilgore.

The Take-Home Points

The fact that there are so many names being used to describe people doing essentially the same jobs has made the exercise-related occupations appear as an occupational miasma full of fly-by-night people who make things up as they go. The fact that recognized organizations claiming to represent and benefit the fitness industry, such as the ACSM and NSCA (and others), have such a fractured and biased approach that pays lip service to exercise and fitness in favor of physical activity and health indicates that they have failed to represent nearly 90% of all active fitness workers.

A government that uses names and definitions different than those used in the real world, a public confused by different occupational titles delivering similar services, and professional and academic organizations who fail to recognize and attend to the problems of nomenclature and defining scopes of practice, create a dangerous circumstance of lack of identity for those who authentically and effectively work in producing fitness outcomes in their clients. Without identity there cannot be effective representation and development of the field.

About the Author
Professor Lon Kilgore graduated from Lincoln University with a bachelor of science in biology and earned a Ph.D. in anatomy and physiology from Kansas State University. He has competed in weightlifting to the national level since 1972 and coached his first athletes to national-championship event medals in 1974. He has worked in the trenches, as a coach or scientific consultant, with athletes from rank novices to professionals and the Olympic elite, and as a collegiate strength coach. He has been a certifying instructor for USA Weightlifting for more than a decade and a frequent lecturer at events at the U.S. Olympic Training Center. His illustration, authorship, and co-authorship efforts include the best-selling books “Starting Strength” (first and second editions) and “Practical Programming for Strength Training” (first and second editions), recent releases “Anatomy Without a Scalpel” and “FIT,” magazine columns, textbook chapters, and numerous research journal publications. He is presently engaged in the most difficult task of his career: recreating the educational track to becoming a professional fitness practitioner. The second stage of this effort is the creation of a one-year university qualification in fitness practice at the University of the West of Scotland.

Editor’s Note: We are pleased to present this guest post by Harvard Business School student, and our summer intern, Colin Fraser.

In the wake of the FIFA corruption scandal, sports organizations and governing bodies around the world have rightfully come under much deeper scrutiny, especially with regards to conflicts of interest.

CrossFit Inc. has been dissecting the inner workings of the International Confederation of Registers of Exercise Professionals (ICREPs). Russells’ Blog readers may remember the ICREPs as the association formerly headed up by Richard Beddie, who made the defamatory and completely unfounded accusation that CrossFit had “killed 6 people.” CrossFit Founder and CEO Greg Glassman recently updated us on this situation. Beddie later claimed that he was misquoted, and CrossFit Inc. has filed suit against him in New Zealand.

Now Beddie has been sidelined, and in a recent press release ICREPs announced that Stuart Turner of Skills Active UK (another aspiring register of exercise professionals) is taking over. The press release stated that Beddie would “continue…providing direct support to new members as they develop their national registers.” We can only hope that the “support” Beddie gives comes not in the form of teaching, not extortion and corruption.

Stuart Turner: The Next Beddie?

Unfortunately for the fitness world at large, it appears that the changing of the guard at ICREPs may have failed to produce meaningful change.  More specifically, evidence suggests that ICREPS may not be ensuring that its member registers meet its own expressed standards.

ICREPs’ website states clearly that in order to become a full member of ICREPs, national registers (such as USREPs) must “be independent from training providers and operators of exercise facilities.” See below:

Source: http://www.icreps.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2012-Application-to-become-a-full-Member-of-The-International-Confederation-for-Registers-of-Exercise-Professionals.pdf

The ICREPS website elaborates on this requirement, stating,

Training providers can, and should, be consulted about many elements of the register, but must not have any significant interest or control of its operations.  So for example training providers may have an advisory function to the register, but must not own or direct the register in any way.  Similarly it is essential that exercise facilities (employers) are consulted about many aspects of the register’s operations and the standards that it uses, but the register itself must not operate exercise facilities, nor be controlled by them.

This may seem like a noble and just statement. It makes sense that an organization purporting to register qualified individuals should not favor one training provider over another or even one type of gym over another.

A strong argument can be made that ICREPs’ members do not come even close to meeting this standard. Delving further into the documentation at ICREPs, one stumbles upon the “Guide to ICREPs Structure & Operations” – their go-to document for wannabe new National Registers. In this document we see what can only be described as the antithesis of independence from training providers and exercise facilities – huge carve-outs that basically allow conflicts of interest, leveraging of the National Register for personal gain, favoring providers that you have a personal or financial relationship with and even allowing the Register of Exercise Professionals to offer training itself!

To take a case in point, let’s look at one of the board members of ICREPs, Nasar Al Tameemi. This man is the CEO of a Dubai-based firm, Infinity Sports Management, which brought the first commercial Health & Fitness centre to Abu Dhabi and was also the first to introduce Les Mills classes in the Middle East. Already it is clear where his interests lie, but yet ICREPs (alongside Dubai Sports Council) still “awarded” Infinity Sports Management the ability to create an independent national register of exercise professionals (REPs UAE). The story doesn’t stop there, and the ties between the for-profit Infinity Sports Management and the non-profit REPs UAE get more and more tangled. They share the same CEO and Director of Operations, and Infinity Sports Management’s training courses often feature in the REPs UAE newsletters with a discount for REPs UAE members. Coincidence? We think not.

Nasar Al Tameemi: http://infinitysportmanagement.com/images/naser.jpg

If you are not yet convinced of the conflicts of interests in ICREPs member organizations, maybe this final example will help. As mentioned previously, Stuart Turner is the new chairman of ICREPs. A quick director search in the UK brings up that he is also a director at the for-profit company, Skills Active Services Ltd, the commercial arm of the non-profit that runs the UK’s version of REPs. Perhaps this doesn’t sound so bad, but the commercial arm made $5 million in sales and returned only $50,000 to its parent company, according to their 2014 financial statements. That’s a handsome paycheck in salaries for their directors.

Or let’s look at the United States. Here’s the USREPS board of directors. The President of USREPS, Graham Melstrand, is a Vice President at the American Council on Exercise, a fitness certification provider. USREPS’ vice president, Richard Cotton, is the National Director of Certification at the American College of Sports Medicine, another fitness company. Going down the list, nearly ever board member of USREPS works for a fitness “training provider.”

Source: http://www.usreps.org/Pages/boardofdirectors.aspx

And look at the companies for whom the board members work: ACSM, NSCA, ACE, etc. These are the same companies that USREPS is lobbying the government to mandate as the exclusive legal providers of fitness certifications. How is this independence?

How can USREPS officials independently verify that ACSM and NSCA provide legitimate services while working for those same companies?

If ICREPs has systematically failed to ensure the independence of its national members, and the members themselves often fail to check up on the individual trainers, what are we left with? Is it anything more than a defunct, useless, and corrupt system that allows Big Soda and licensure lobbyists to control and funnel membership fees from hard-working personal trainers and fitness professionals into the bank accounts of influential people in the industry?

As ICREPs itself admits, “for a true register to operate, it can not both deliver education and ‘check’ it.” By ICREPs’ own standard, are ICREPs’ member registers “true?”

About the Author: Colin Fraser graduated from the University of Strathclyde, UK with a masters degree in engineering and is now halfway through his MBA studies at Harvard Business School. Colin had his first paid employment as a rugby coach in his native Scotland at the tender age of 15 and has been involved in sports, coaching and fitness ever since. He has competed in a variety of sports including soccer, rugby, field hockey and badminton as well as multiple endurance obstacle races and is now training for a 100-mile ultra marathon. His passion is in the use of sports and fitness coaching to offer underprivileged teenagers an alternative path in life and was granted a Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship to travel to Cuba and South Africa to study this further. He was introduced to CrossFit back in 2014 at Omnipotent CrossFit and is now studying the international implications of regulation on the fitness industry for CrossFit Inc.

Originally published in English on August 21, 2014.

Translated by CrossFit L1 Staff member Gabriel García Merlos

En Agosto 6 Zyrees Oliver, un chico de 17 años con un 3.8 GPA, se presentó a la practica del equipo de football de su secundaria a 90 grados en pleno calor de Verano en Georgia.(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-teen-dies-from-drinking-too-much-water-gatorade/)

Pero no fue el calor lo que lo afectó.

Durante la práctica, Zyrees se quejó de calambres. Su tío el Dr. Tammy Chavis reportó que el bebió aproximadamente 2 galones de agua, y dos galones de Gatorade. No está claro si su excesivo consumo de agua precedió o fue posterior a los calambres.

No estoy seguro si alguien midió precisamente el consumo de fluido de Zyrees, y así tomar esos cuatro galones con una dosis saludable de electrólitos. Y por lo tanto justo ahora no conocemos la historia completa detrás de la muerte de Zyrees. Tal vez algo además de la sobre-hidratación jugó un rol. Cuando la autopsia salga a la vista, sabremos más.

Sin embargo, la prensa reporta que “familiares dijeron que los doctores les comentaron que Oliver sufrió de inflamación masiva alrededor del cerebro por sobre hidratación.” Ellos también indicaron que tenía intoxicación por agua (sobre-hidratación). En otras palabras, esto suena como que Zyrees murió de Hiponatremia Encefálopatica  (EAHE, siglas en inglés) asociada al ejercicio.

Temprano en este año CrossFit comenzó una campaña de concienciación para esparcir la palabra acerca de los peligros de beber de más y la EAHE. Estamos entregando más de 500 copias gratis de la historia sobre hiponatremia de Tim Noakes, Waterlogged a cualquiera que pregunte en el pizarrón de discusión de CrossFit.

¿Pero por que es necesario decirle a las personas que no beban demasiada agua o Gatorade? A diferencia del refresco o alcohol, beber Gatorade en exceso simplemente no es divertido. La prensa que cubrió la muerte de Oliver sugiere una razón por la cual las personas están bebiendo de más: la información que ellos han recibido de los “expertos.”

Toma esta cobertura del noticiero 4 de Georgia, por el momento. Este reporta que de acuerdo al entrenador atlético “Bryan Anderson  dice que prevenir la deshidratación en primer lugar es clave. El recomienda a los atletas que beban agua durante todo el día  – en lugar que demasiado de una sola vez.”

Esto es extraño. ¿Anderson piensa que la clave para prevenir sobre-hidratación, es prevenir la deshidratación? Esto empeora, Anderson recomienda que los atletas beban durante el transcurso del día,

“No sólo programar pausas para tomar agua…también, tu tendrías que programar pausas para tomar agua en tiempo de descanso. Entonces, por cada 15 o 20 minutos, especialmente con el calor que tenemos ahora… estos podrían ser tan pequeños como 10 o 15 minutos.”

No es justo señalar a un solo entrenador atlético. El esta probablemente solo repitiendo lo que se le ha enseñado. La Asociación Atlética de Entrenadores (NATA por sus siglas en inglés) es “afiliado de Gatorade” de acuerdo al libro de Darren Rogell’s First in Thirst.

No es exactamente claro para mi lo que significa para profesionales médicos el estar “afiliado” con una marca de azúcar con agua, sin embargo puedo adivinar. El sitio web de NATA admite que Gatorade es un “Patrocinador de fondos.” ¿Como podría reaccionar el patrocinador de fondos a los  miembros de NATA prescribiendo limites de máximo consumo seguro sobre su producto de marquesina?

Source: http://www.nata.org/nata-founding-sponsor-gatorade-company

El enlace entre intereses comerciales y la confusión sobre hidratación no es solo una conjetura de CrossFit. El Washington Post reportó,

“La muerte por sobre hidratación es rara pero también prevenible. Simplemente tienes que beber menos. Sin embargo, eso es algunas veces más fácil de decir que hacer con todos los conflictos y comúnmente consejos incorrectos que existen acerca de cuanta agua deberías consumir después de actividad intensa…El  consejo llega muy tarde para Oliver, quien tenía sueños de jugar football en la universidad.”

Zyrees no murió de un accidente impredecible, o un acto de la naturaleza. Su muerte fue una predecible consecuencia de hidratarse excesivamente y una extrema Hiponatremia. Con las directrices sobre hidratación correctas hechas públicas a todos los entrenadores y atletas, él habría sobrevivido. Ahora es nuestro deber prevenir al siguiente Zyrees de morir jovén. Pero si se lo dejamos a los “expertos” como Bryan Anderson y al Instituto de Ciencia en el Deporte de Gatorade, ¿suficientes entrenadores y atletas aprenderían a evitar la sobre hidratación?

Como un periódico Ingles de Medicina en el deporte reportó, “ Los corredores tienen muy pobre entendimiento de las consecuencias fisiológicas  de las costumbres de hidratación que frecuentemente reflejan los  mensajes de publicidad.”

Por favor únanse a nosotros para apoyar a la familia Zyrees mientras ellos entierran a su hijo.

There can be no reasonable doubt that soda companies corrupted hydration science. Even the American College of Sports Medicine’s president has admitted that Gatorade funding distorts scientific objectivity. And make no mistake, corrupted hydration guidelines have caused deaths.

To prevent further deaths caused by false hydration beliefs, CrossFit hosted an international scientific conference on over-hydration. Our conference produced the only current evidence-based hydration guidelines available anywhere. And now, CBS News and other mainstream media outlets are finally spreading the conference’s message to “drink to thirst.”

CBS’s hyponatremia coverage: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/avoid-dangerous-over-hydration-this-summer/

But more work lies ahead. Despite admitting there’s no evidence that dehydration causes heat illnesses, Gatorade is continuing its myth-based “Beat the Heat” campaign. And the same Soda corruption CrossFit identified and is correcting in hydration can be found throughout American health and fitness. Now the conflict between CrossFit’s 12,000 affiliates and Big Soda is playing out in politics. Big Soda continues to sponsor the same organizations lobbying to turn CrossFit affiliate owners into criminals.

As strange as it may seem, an industry whose products are estimated to kill 184,000 people every year has a powerful influence on American health science.

Good News: Cereal and Soda Consumption Are Way Down

http://fortune.com/2015/03/26/soda-sales-drop-2014/

Consumers are gradually learning that products high in processed carbohydrates are unhealthy. Fortune notes that,

Sales of carbonated soft drinks slid for the tenth straight year in 2014 … The soda industry has struggled as consumers increasingly turn to juices, flavored waters, and other beverage options they deem healthier.

And the American consumer’s disgust with unhealthy food harms more than just soda. The decade-long decline in American soda consumption exactly coincided with a decade-long decline in breakfast cereal consumption.

Companies such as General Mills have had to cut hundreds of jobs already,

Other food makers, such as Kellogg Co. and H.J. Heinz Co., also have been scaling back production, closing factories and cutting corporate overhead as they grapple with U.S. consumers trading their shelf-stable and frozen groceries for fresher food.

http://assets.bwbx.io/images/i1yFXUOb9OUU/v18/-1x-1.jpg

But why are consumers becoming increasingly disgusted by soda and cereal? What companies and groups are influencing them? Read the press coverage of this market change and you find paragraphs such as these from the New York Times:

Additionally, there’s a small but very active and influential group of millennials who are focused on health and don’t like processed food. Guess what, cereal companies? They want to kill you.”

Cereal sales have long been subject to dips brought on by food fads like the Atkins diet or bagel mania. And many cereals are neither gluten-free nor protein-rich, so they fail to resonate with the growing number of consumers who are gluten-intolerant or adherents of the so-called paleo diet.

How is the food industry coping? Continuing a generation-old, failing policy, they are trying to co-opt consumers’ interest in health by sponsoring ostensibly health and fitness-focused organizations such as the ACSM and the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA).

Big Soda’s thinking seems to be, “if consumers don’t think carbonated sugar water is healthy, at least our sponsored health organizations can convince them that non-carbonated sugar water (sports drinks) are ‘good for you.'”

And thus PepsiCo and Coca-Cola sponsor the ACSM and other health and fitness organizations such as NSCA, the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). PepsiCo’s pushing of Gatorade as health food is explicit,

PepsiCo has reclassified its portfolio into three different product categories: “Fun for you,” which includes traditional sodas and snacks; “better for you,” typically offering low-calorie versions of its products; and “good for you,” which targets health-conscious consumers with brands such as Gatorade, Quaker, Tropicana, Aquafina, and Naked Juice, among several others.

Do you trust Big Tobacco or Big Soda’s Science?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/07/business/07adco_450.jpg

If Big Tobacco’s sponsored scientists denied that tobacco caused cancer, would you believe them?

We wouldn’t. And the same skepticism should apply to Big Soda’s sponsored scientists.

It’s worth remembering that as recently as 2003, a large tobacco company’s scientists were still claiming that “Cigarette smoking has not been scientifically established as a cause of lung cancer. The cause or causes of lung cancer are unknown.”

Is Coca-Cola’s sponsorship of the ACSM any different from the prospect of Camel Cigarettes sponsoring the American Lung Association?

Industry-tied scientists have developed a very effective strategy that protects their sponsors:

1. Hide the Risks.
2. Confuse the Public.
3. Reverse the Causation.
4. Attack the Opposition.

Let’s discuss these one-by-one.

1. Hide the Risks

Does soda make you fat? Ask independent scientists and the answer is usually “yes!”

Ask Big Soda’s scientists and the answer is usually “no.” Is this disagreement an accident? Consider the following graph from Fooducate, based on this study.

source: http://blog.fooducate.com/2014/01/14/this-simple-chart-explains-the-devastating-influence-industry-has-on-scientific-integrity/

But what if you remove the confounding factor of obesity? In other words, if you drink soda but don’t get fat, do you still put your health at risk? The best statistical evidence available shows a strong link between sugar and diabetes, entirely independent of obesity.

Dr. Robert Lustig: http://profiles.ucsf.edu/robert.lustig

Dr. Robert Lustig, of the University of California, San Francisco, performed this study. He explains,

Epidemiology cannot directly prove causation … But in medicine, we rely on the postulates of Sir Austin Bradford Hill to examine associations to infer causation, as we did with smoking. You expose the subject to an agent, you get a disease; you take the agent away, the disease gets better; you re-expose and the disease gets worse again. This study satisfies those criteria, and places sugar front and center.

So the ADA essentially calls Dr. Lustig’s statistical conclusion a “myth.” The ADA claims that sugar doesn’t cause type-2 diabetes; instead they claim that “genetics and lifestyle factors” cause type-2 diabetes.

Genetics influence all diseases, and besides, our genes are outside of our control. So do genetics doom some to Type 2 Diabetes? On the contrary, it is clear that Type-2 Diabetes is preventable, if you make the correct “lifestyle choices.”

The ADA claims lifestyle factors, not “too much sugar,” cause diabetes. But isn’t sugar consumption a “lifestyle factor?” So is the ADA actually disputing Dr. Lustig’s conclusion, or is it merely adding confusing language to it?

When you go beyond the infographic and read the ADA’s guidelines more closely, they do admit that cutting back on sugar helps to both prevent and deal with Type-2 Diabetes. In one bullet point, the ADA even recommends “buying less soda” to prevent diabetes.

In other words, despite the ADA’s confusing infographic, the ADA doesn’t actually dispute the ties between sugar and Type-2 Diabetes. It just prefers to focus its public messaging on abstract “lifestyle factors” than specific guidelines, such as “Don’t drink soda.”

Does the ADA’s confusing position have anything to do with its Coca-Cola funding? Would Coca-Cola still fund the ADA if it made advertisements linking soda to diabetes?

3. Reverse the Causation

One of the most pernicious ways to mislead the public is to claim that a product solves the problem that it actually causes. For example, let’s look at the question: Do sports drinks replenish electrolytes, or deplete electrolyte levels?

Sadly, it depends if you ask Big Soda’s sponsored scientists or independent scientists (Anyone noticing a trend?)

Let’s specifically look at sodium, one of the most critical electrolytes for human health. The medical term for low sodium levels is hyponatremia. The only current, evidence-based guidelines on exercise-associated hyponatremia state,

The single most important risk factor is sustained, excessive fluid (water, sports drinks or other hypotonic fluids) intake in volumes greater than loss through sweat, respiratory and renal water excretion so that a positive fluid balance accrues over time … All sports beverages are hypotonic to plasma (typical sodium content in sports drinks are approximately 10-38 mmol/L88); thus the magnitude of excessive fluid volume ingestion will overwhelm any protective effect of the beverages’ sodium content on maintaining serum [Na+].89,90

In plain English, sports drinks such as Gatorade contain so much water and so few electrolytes that they actually lower electrolyte concentration levels. And if athletes drink a lot of Gatorade or Powerade, they will lower their electrolyte concentration to dangerous, potentially fatal levels.

Scientists agree that sports drinks can cause hyponatremia. So why do Coca-Cola and its sponsored organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), claim the opposite of what the science indicates?

The AAP states that sports drinks can serve a purpose for children who need encouragement to drink enough liquids to stay hydrated and avoid hyponatremia

Strangely this states that sports drinks both encourage fluid consumption and prevent hyponatremia. The scientifically valid way to prevent hyponatremia is to limit fluid consumption. So how do sports drinks prevent hyponatremia while encouraging fluid consumption?

Independent scientists say that sports drinks cause hyponatremia; Coca-Cola and the American Academy of Pediatrics say sports drinks prevent hyponatremia. Only one side’s position is based on empirical evidence.

4. Attack the Opposition

Speaking of lacking evidence, Big Soda’s sponsored organizations have attempted to discredit the few health movements that take strong stands against sugar.

Dr. Devor: http://fic.osu.edu/members/directory/d/devor-steven.html

You probably know that Drs. Steven Devor and Michael Smith fabricated injury data. But it may not be immediately obvious how the Devor fraud relates to food. Not only is Dr. Devor a fellow of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo’s sponsored organization, the ACSM, but he works in the “Food Innovation Lab” at Ohio State. And the organization that knowingly published Devor’s fraudulent study, the NSCA, receives funding from PepsiCo.

After Drs. Devor and Smith published their fraudulent CrossFit study, they published another fraudulent study on the Paleo diet. Devor and Smith’s Paleo fraud contained multiple false claims, but the core of the problem is that they ascribed the subjects’ results to a diet they did not follow. Devor and Smith claim the subjects’ blood lipids worsened due to the Paleo diet, but the subjects didn’t follow the Paleo diet.

Dr. Devor’s bias against the Paleo diet becomes clear in his emails to his colleagues:

To make matters worse, when we reported Devor’s Paleo fraud to the scientific journal that published it, the journal refused to retract or even correct the study.

Can Soda and Science Coexist?

Ethically addressing fraud may be too much to ask for an American health-science industry that is funded by PepsiCo and Coca-Cola. But is there any way to keep Big Soda’s influence in American health science while still getting accurate health science? It appears not. In Part 2 we will look at how some honest scientists are successfully resisting Big Soda’s corruption of health organizations.

http://www.bandujo.com/portfolio/doh-pouring-on-the-pounds/

Editor’s Note: This article by Russ Greene is the first to publicly release Greg Glassman’s full email to ABC’s Good Morning America regarding Coca-Cola and the musician whose concerts it sponsors, Nick Jonas. Greg’s email is quoted halfway down.

Last week CrossFit posted a modified Coca-Cola ad that warned, Open Diabetes.

https://instagram.com/p/4hHG9htDUL/

Compelling statistical evidence supports CrossFit’s campaign to prevent diabetes by raising awareness about its causes. Yet Coca-Cola’s funded entities, such as the American Diabetes Association and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, have confused the public about their products’ fatal side effects. Incidentally, 86 million Americans have pre-diabetes and the CDC predicts that at least 1/3 of Americans will have Type-2 Diabetes by 2050.

When we posted this image, we had no idea how Coca-Cola’s sponsored entities would respond. We definitely weren’t expecting the image to appear on “Good Morning America.” Nonetheless, the audience is appreciated.

It all started with a Jonas Brother. Nick Jonas, a singer and Type 1 diabetic whose concerts are sponsored by Coca-Cola, tweeted his objections to CrossFit’s diabetes awareness campaign.

https://twitter.com/nickjonas

We responded on Twitter by pointing out that Coca-Cola sponsors Jonas’ concerts. In addition, we wondered why Jonas acted so insensitively toward Type 2 diabetics.

https://twitter.com/GreenPlusAnE/status/615881139794903040

Matt Knox of “Good Morning America” contacted CrossFit Founder and CEO Greg Glassman and asked him for a response. Greg responded,,

Hi, Matt,

Fuck Nick Jonas.

This is about the scourge of Type 2 Diabetes and its underlying causes. His sponsor, Coca-Cola, is a significant contributor to the diabetes epidemic both with product and “marketing” spend.

Greg Glassman CEO

CrossFit Inc

“Good Morning America” did not run Greg’s full response on air. In turn, Jonas’ representative denied that Jonas has ever “had a deal or sponsorship with Coca-Cola.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/nick-jonas-chides-crossfit-diabetes-tweet-company-fires/story?id=32172324

Coca-Cola’s denial was more circumspect. The corporation did not deny sponsoring Jonas’ concerts but instead responded to an issue that Greg did not raise. Coca-Cola told ABC that Jonas is “not a paid spokesman for the company.” That may be true, but CrossFit never claimed Jonas was a Coca-Cola spokesman; CrossFit claimed Jonas was sponsored by Coca-Cola.

Nick Jonas and Coca-Cola failed to do the right thing. They had an ethical obligation to come clean about their sponsor relationship. And this despite the easily available evidence that Coca-Cola sponsors Jonas’ concerts. Here are some recent Jonas appearances “presented” or “sponsored” by Coca-Cola:

November 15, 2014 in Little Rock, AR
February 5, 2015 in Atlanta, GA
February 6, 2015 in Houston, TX
February 7, 2015 in Rosemont, IL
February 8, 2015 in Seatlle, WA

http://www.eventbrite.com/e/celebrate-10-an-evening-with-the-clintons-and-special-guests-tickets-13999483833

We haven’t yet seen a message from Coca-Cola to Jonas directing him to defend the company against CrossFit’s Open Diabetes image. That said, Jonas and Coca-Cola’s refusal to admit their commercial relationship is in itself suspicious. What are they trying to hide?

Jonas’ diverted the conversation away from Coca-Cola’s links to diabetes by falsely accusing CrossFit of insulting Type 1 diabetics. The argument goes that since CrossFit didn’t specify that Coke is related to type-2 diabetes, it implied that soda causes type-1 diabetes. And so Type 1 diabetics began attacking CrossFit Inc.

About 90-95 percent of adult American diabetes cases are Type 2. And when CrossFit discusses diabetes prevention, it’s talking about the 90-95 percent of cases that are preventable (Type 2), not the 5-10 percent that are unpreventable (Type 1).

After Jonas opposed CrossFit’s post about Coca-Cola and diabetes, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the American Diabetes Association fanned the flames. Coca-Cola funds both. We will address them and their denial that Coca-Cola causes diabetes in an upcoming post.

To conclude, we urge Good Morning America to amend its story by disclosing Coca-Cola’s commercial relationship with Nick Jonas. GMA has not yet responded to our private emails in this regard. ABC’s coverage thus remains partial.

http://seattle.eventful.com/events/nick-jonas-x-sam-smith-live-concert-presented-/E0-001-078391813-5

This comment, by CrossFit CEO and founder Greg Glassman originally appeared on CrossFit.com in the comments section of 150805. I’ve removed it from its original context, but its value goes beyond rebuking the specific commenters mentioned. Anyone who believes (erroneously) that the L1 is an inferior credential, and therefore CrossFit trainers should be licensed and regulated by our competitors, should read the following carefully.

As the principal architect of the CrossFit L1 Training Certificate I’m sure I have a bias when asked to weigh in on its merits. That bias includes launching this course with the stated aims of producing the most effective and important physical training program on earth and likely asserts itself again when I tell you that we’ve knocked it out of the park wrt those aims.

The curriculum is the essence of what is needed to safely and effectively maximize the potential adaptation of the certificate holder’s prospective clients. The goal from the beginning was to translate the physiological model that is CF theory into a weekend long introduction to that material.

The L1 kernel is the most important thing a human being could learn in one weekend. It’s also the only place you can go to learn the truth about salient lifestyle choices that optimize quality of life.

This sixteen hour exposure to our world of constantly varied, high intensity, functional movement, fueled by meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch, and no sugar has transformed the health of participants around the world. Application of the L1 kernel has flensed nearly a hundred million pounds of fat and added a similar amount of denser bone and muscle to CrossFit training clients globally. An unprecedented 115,000 people have taken a course that will allow them to avoid obesity, diabetes, coronary artery disease, autoimmune disorder, osteoporosis, end stage kidney disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and early check-in at the convalescent hospital while teaching them how to motivate, demonstrate, and achieve the same in others.

The L1 kernel produced a cohort of teenage girls at the Games this year completing workouts that no man on earth could have completed in the same time 12 years ago. The L1 kernel is the technology manifest in that advancement in human capacity. We are in sole possession of a technology of human performance. The L1 kernel is that technology. This certificate course has fueled the global explosion of 13,000 CF gyms and motivated 273,000 CF’ers to throw their hats into the ring in this years Games. In the darkening storm that has 100,000,000 Americans slated for type 2 diabetes, CF and it’s adherents, because of the L1 kernel and certificate offering, constitute the only bright spot on the horizon.

Our competitors offering provides no trainer training, just a test. It’s not even a test of training knowledge and human movement/performance, but a test of anatomy and physiology. The NSCA and ACSM tests are measure of one’s willingness to accept their sponsors view of healthy living. It’s an unconscionable deficiency that motivated our seminar’s creation. (The first L1 conducted was done so at the insistence of training agents from the US DOJ. That relationship continues to this day. The US Military is our biggest customer by far.) Our competitors are financially committed to their high-carb, low fat, machine based fare by a combination of woefully lacking science acumen coupled with complete dependence on Coca-Cola and Pepsi for money. Our competitors, the NSCA and the ACSM, and their big soda backers have created the exact mess that CF Inc., 13,000 CF Affiliates, and 115,000 CF trainers are successfully reversing. 100,000,000 Americans will get diabetes because of the ACSM’s lording over exercise science since 1954. Their commitment to hiding their sponsors’ devastating impact on the nation’s health is job number one at the ACSM. The ACSM/Gatorade essential role in the rash of exercise associated hyponatremia deaths is appalling and needs congressional investigation. All that’s wrong at the ACSM is probably worse at the NSCA. When you think NSCA – think Pepsi. When you think ACSM – think Coca-Cola. It’ll help you understand their utter betrayal of charter and how it is that these collaborations have proven to be so deadly and will continue to remain deadly. There’s no greater threat to American’s health than the ACSM’s backing Coca-Cola’s massive intrusion into the training space.

Licensure is a hail mary effort to achieve exactly what can no longer be achieved in the marketplace – keep the truth about diet and exercise hidden. The L1 kernel and certificate course are that truth.

See, Dave, brhino72, you both have it perfectly wrong. Our L1 is not only the best offering in trainer training ever, its impact makes it a standout offering in the entire history of education. I doubt whether you two have never been more wrong about anything.

Comment #20 – Posted by: Greg Glassman on August 6, 2015 9:18 AM

Editor’s Note: John Weatherly concludes his three-part series on the myth of American sport science looking at corporate “Sports Science” institutes. See Part 1 and Part 2.

The first two parts of this series helped define and determine how rare sports science is in the US. This article will focus on the MusclePharm Sports Science Institute along with the Gatorade Sports Science Institute to see what these company sports science institutes actually do for real athletes and sports.

Creatine Nitrate: http://www.ebay.com/itm/MusclePharm-Arnold-Series-IRON-CRE3-Super-Creatine-Nitrate-30-Serves-ALL-FLAVORS-/281173765172

The MusclePharm Sports Science Institute

The MusclePharm Sports Science Institute makes some big claims. Yet remember the points that I and Russ Greene made in the “Mooned by NSCA Sponsors” series on MusclePharm: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

As a quick refresher, MusclePharm is the NSCA’s lead sponsor for education and research. MusclePharm has been sued for overstating protein content (saying there was over twice the protein in a supplement than what independent testing revealed) in one of their supplements, is on the verge of financial collapse, has violated federal securities laws, has used the registered CrossFit trademark without authorization, and used NSF certifications and labels without authorization; and had one of their executives plead guilty to the FDA for delivery and introduction of misbranded drugs (steroids or steroid clones) that were sold as supplements.

While we could focus on several of the 6 stages, let’s hone in on 4 Athlete Protocol. The first two sentences under 4 Athlete Protocol say,

Science and sport go hand in hand in our product development. A real world application is crucial and our MusclePharm Sports Science Institute in Denver gives athletes and our team a cutting edge to make it all happen.

Do you remember what my mentor, former USOC Head of Sports Physiology Dr. Mike Stone, said in his presentation?

“These observations dealing with the athlete environment highlight one of the problems with typical scientific studies that isolate or control subject environments. Studies must be carried out in which the complete environment of the athlete is taken into consideration. For example: observations of the effects of two different strength training protocols may produce very different results if one study was untrained subjects or even athletes but the training protocols were in isolation from other aspects of the athletes’ life (e.g. other aspects of training, practice etc.). Even a cursory look through the scientific literature clearly shows that there is very little comparative research on athletes while functioning in their complete environment” (Slide 60).

Let’s take a look at “athlete protocols” with research from MusclePharm’s Sports Science Institute and see how it measures up. I’ll start with a presentation from the recent 2015 American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) National Conference. It’s the first one listed here, and is by Joy et al. The title is: “Performance Effects of 10 Weeks Supplementation with a Purported Testosterone-Boosting Supplement.” You can view the abstract here.

Pay attention to the Methods
Eighteen trained men were subjects. It doesn’t define how highly-trained the subjects were. Apparently they aren’t athletes competing in a specific sport, because nothing is mentioned about this either. All it says is eighteen trained subjects. I’m assuming this means resistance trained, but we are left to guess. Does it mean they lifted weights recreationally for a year or more, or what? Observing the bar graph under “Results on the Leg Press”, it doesn’t appear the subjects were very strong. One group received a testosterone-booster supplement (TB) while the other group got placebos in this double-blind experiment. The subjects trained 3 days a week using a daily undulating periodization protocol for 8 weeks. The last 2 weeks of the 10 week study used overreaching followed by a taper. From tests (1RM strength, peak power and velocity, VJ, 30 sec Wingates) the researchers concluded the group getting the TB improved strength and prevented decreased performance associated with overreaching.

A Sports Science Institute? http://mpssi.com/musclepharm-sports-science-institute/

My Take
This study has very little value for competitive athletes. The subjects only trained 3 days a week for 10 weeks and apparently were not practicing for a sport. Thus, by not having competitive athletes as subjects or a sport involved, it is hard to see how this qualifies as “sports science?” It tells you about 25-26 year old males with normal testosterone levels who have some training experience. It’s not “sports science!”

So, this recent presentation from the 2015 ACSM National Conference wasn’t sports science. Let’s observe publications coming out of the “MusclePharm Sports Science Institute.”

It gets even worse with the publications! You have to scroll down to the fifth one until you can read a publication or abstract. This study by Falcone et al. is titled: “Subcutaneous and Segmented Fat Loss with and without Supportive Supplements in Conjunction with a Low-Calorie High Protein Diet in Healthy Women.”

This study used 37 recreationally-trained women as subjects for 3 weeks. This is not sports science!

http://mpssi.com/

The next study (6th one down) by Vogel et al. uses recreationally active females as subjects. Once again competitive athletes that play sports are not even used as subjects!

The next study is by Joy et al. and titled: “28 Days of Creatine Nitrate Supplementation is Apparently Safe in Healthy Individuals.”

This is another study on non-athletes from the “MusclePharm Sports Science Institute.” A small consolation is you can read the entire study. Scroll down to the last paragraph in the “Discussion” section, which reads,

“This is the first study to examine the safety of CN. From the present results, we can conclude that CN in doses of up to 2g are safe for human consumption for a duration of 28 days. All measured variables remained within the normal range across groups, with the exception of BUN which was not statistically significant when the groups were compared. Therefore, CN supplementation may be contraindicated for those already high in BUN. Additionally while the differences observed for absolute monocytes and lymphocytes appear to be due to variability and remained within range, CN may be unadvisable for daily consumption for those with a weakened immune system. In the present study, CN was supplemented for only 28 days, and future research may be interested in examining CN for a longer trial period to confirm its safety. Moreover, future studies are required to determine the efficacy of CN, as the combined effects of nitrates and creatine on both longitudinal and acute changes in performance and body composition are currently unknown.”

So they think CN is safe for 28 days but longer than that they don’t know? Have they been selling this stuff without knowing the long-term safety? Regardless, this is yet another non-athlete subjects study from the “MusclePharm Sports Science Institute.”

The only two “studies” I saw under Published Research Papers at http://www.mpssi.com that appeared to have some relevance to athletes were two “review type papers” on body composition. One study on cluster sets was somewhat interesting but again did not use athletes participating in sports as subjects, so it has little relation to “sports science.”

In summary, out of sixteen publications that you can read abstracts or the entire text for only “two reviews” under Published Research Papers on body composition would even come close to real “sports science.” The rest of the studies didn’t even use athletes as subjects. How is this “sports science?”

The Gatorade Sports Science Institute

The Gatorade Sports Science Institute has been around since 1985. It has a main lab along with mobile and satellite labs.

It’s interesting with their long history (30 years) and team of scientists that the Gatorade Sports Science Institute recently changed their stance by finally telling athletes to listen to their thirst, and admitting that there’s no evidence that dehydration causes heat illness.

This is also quite a change from ACSM’s 1996 position stand which encouraged athletes to drink” as much as tolerable.” The change occurred after CrossFit exposed Gatorade’s corruption of hydration science.

Why did it take Pepsi-owned Gatorade and the Gatorade Sports Science Institute so long to change its stand? Why did it take so much pressure and rare but tragic deaths (which may have been preventable) from hyponatremic encaphalopathy to get Gatorade to change its marketing? For clues we can start at the beginning of the Gatorade empire.

Dr. Robert Cade et al. invented Gatorade in the mid 1960s.

Darren Rovell’s “First in Thirst”: http://www.amazon.com/First-Thirst-Gatorade-Cultural-Phenomenon/dp/0814410952

The following is derived from Darren Rovell’s, First in Thirst: How Gatorade Turned the Science of Sweat into a Cultural Phenomenon.

Stokely-Van Camp bought the Gatorade idea from Dr. Cade et al. in 1967. The concoction did not taste good so the scientists at Stokely added sugar. Ingredients in Gatorade have not changed much at all over the years. Changes have been related to safety (i.e., ingredient perhaps safer), cost (cheaper), or better taste. This near absence of change over 45-50 years since Gatorade was invented has led to speculation about the real purpose of the Gatorade Sports Science Institute (GSSI). GSSI has funded a large number of studies over many years. Could it be possible that almost nothing has changed in sports drink science to improve Gatorade in around half a century?

Dr. Robert Cade, the inventor of Gatorade, didn’t think so! Cade had received around $8 million in royalties from Gatorade, but by 1989 he and his colleagues were focused on creating a superior product to Gatorade. The product was Thirst Quencher 2 (TQ2). Cade gave cyclists TQ2 and Gatorade in a head to head battle in May of 1989. TQ2 beat Gatorade on heart rate and changes in blood volume. Cade believed TQ2 would give prolonged endurance athletes a 30 percent longer workout than Gatorade.

Gatorade inventor Robert Cade didn’t think Gatorade worked optimally for athletes: https://www.uff.ufl.edu/FacultyEndowments/ProfessorshipInfo.asp?ProfessorshipFund=006937

Cade agreed to the University of Florida having patent rights to TQ2. The University of Florida would license TQ2 to Phoenix Advanced Technologies for an initial fee to produce the formula. Dr. Cade would be a paid spokesman for TQ2. Cade told the media TQ2 performed and tasted better than Gatorade.

This made the Gatorade Trust and Quaker (who owned Gatorade at the time) upset. They believed any sports drink advances by Dr. Cade belonged to them. So, they sued Dr. Cade, Phoenix and the University of Florida. Gatorade sued its own inventor for making what he considered to be an innovation!

It took a couple years, but Cade and Phoenix eventually decided to settle. Phoenix sold TQ2 to Quaker, and Quaker took TQ2 off the market. This is quite interesting since the Gatorade that Quaker obtained from Stokely and that Pepsi later acquired from Quaker has been virtually unchanged.

Gatorade (fully owned by PepsiCo) is a high-level sponsor of the NSCA, ACSM (since 1991), and has relationships with almost every trainers organization. For example, Gatorade publishes a newsletter twice a year that includes a column on “sports science” by a GSSI member for the Professional Football Athletic Trainers Society (PFATS).

Gatorade sued its own Inventor. http://nephrology.medicine.ufl.edu/resources/visiting-professorships/j-robert-cade/

The GSSI walks a tightrope between public education and using the GSSI to sell product. Educating the public may be the stated goal, but it is not possible to disregard the fact the GSSI is a part of Gatorade and Gatorade is a part of Pepsico, which is a huge company in business to make money.

Additionally, while hydration and nutrition can be considered components of what makes up sports science, this does not deal with the complete athlete environment. Under “Specific Topics for Performance, Training Adaptations, and Recovery,” I found only one study that was done on basketball, baseball, or football. So, while they have satellite labs, they must not be studying the Big 3 American sports very much.

It’s also interesting that low-fat chocolate milk is touted as an excellent recovery drink for athletes, and I haven’t seen comparisons with Gatorade products such as Gatorade’s Whey Protein Bar for recovery.

Beet-root juice has been popular with athletes, and I haven’t seen this compared yet to Gatorade products either.

You’d think the “Gatorade Sports Science Institute” would be publishing all kinds of head to head studies on various drinks and recovery nutrients using different athletes as subjects. I haven’t seen too many of these. What has the “Gatorade Sports Science Institute” been doing for athletes and coaches?

There’s also the possibility that if you are exercising less than an hour it really doesn’t matter much as long as you drink to thirst. Water is probably still as good as it gets here.

Different groups are starting to catch on, recognizing that sugary sports drinks like Gatorade are closer to a can of soda than an elite athletic performance beverage and that, by extension, “sports science” published by groups like the GSSI are more akin to an advertisement. San Francisco lawmakers unanimously voted on June 9^th, 2015 to require all advertisements for sugar-sweetened beverages to display this warning:

“WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.”

So there will be warning labels on Gatorade advertisements in San Francisco. This is good ammunition to have in case you run into marketers disguised as sports science, sports medicine, athletic training, or strength and conditioning personnel.

Summary

In this sports science series, we learned sports science is almost non-existent in the US university system. Many seem to like to think they are sports scientists or use the term sport scientist, but few actually work with athletes in the complete athlete environment in the US. Additionally, we reviewed how companies use the title “Sports Science Institute” without studying athletes or sports (i.e., MusclePharm), or as a possible marketing front (Gatorade).

MusclePharm and Gatorade sponsor the NSCA. Of course, Gatorade is also a big sponsor of ACSM. Where is the sports science? Does this resemble marketing, sales, and special interests more than sports science? Something has to be done to help coaches and athletes in America’s biggest sports of baseball, basketball, and football. Our universities and organizations such as the NSCA and ACSM have failed miserably.

About the Author: John T. Weatherly has undergraduate and graduate degrees in exercise science. He was a research assistant to the former Head of Sports Physiology for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) and has helped with conditioning programs for athletes in Olympic sports as well as professional baseball, college football and an NBA player. In the 90’s, John published and reviewed articles for the NSCA and was an NSCA media contact on the sport of baseball. He helped initiate the first study on a rotary inertia exercise device at the University of Southern California (USC) and has consulted with the exercise industry on various topics, including vibration.

Editor’s Note: We are pleased to present this guest post by Dr. Lon Kilgore.

Interrogative: What should professional fitness trainers teach their trainees about performing step ups?

Evidence: The NSCA’s Essentials of Strength Training & Conditioning offers incongruent and unachievable instructions to trainers on teaching clients to perform the step up exercise. To wit;

Instruction 1 – Use a standard overhand grip, just wider than shoulder width

Instruction 2 – Step under the bar and position the feet parallel to each other

Instruction 3 – Place bar on the base of the neck

Instruction 4 – Lift elbows to the rear

Instruction 5 – Chest up and out

Instruction 6 – Tilt head up slightly

Instruction 7 – Extend knees and hips to get bar off racks

Instruction 8 – Walk toward box

Instruction 9 – Stand back from the box a distance equal to the height of the box (12-18”)

Instruction 10 – Step up with one leg and place entire foot on box

Instruction 11 – Do not lean forward – maintain erect torso

Instruction 12 – Shift weight to lead leg and stand up with it, not using the trailing leg to push off

Instruction 13 – Stand up and pause

Instruction 14 – Lift trail leg and move backwards

Instruction 15 – Lower body with lead leg

Instruction 16 – Do not lean forward

Instruction 17 – Replace trail leg 12-18” behind box

Instruction 18 – When trail foot is in contact with floor, move lead foot to floor

Instruction 19 – Stand up and pause

Instruction 20 – Repeat the process with opposite leg leading

Instruction 21 – Replace bar on racks

(Note: Images 1 and 2 are taken from a different perspective from images 3 and 4 so the lines indicating lean have been adjusted to accommodate the rotation in the image field)

Analysis:
Instruction 2, and a note in an accompanying figure caption, suggest that a set of squat racks or other device is the point of origination of the barbell in this exercise. The box that is to be stepped up on is pictured in front of the trainee and the bar is placed on the posterior side of the body. Does the trainee take the bar out of the racks and step back over the box or back up to the bar, unrack and walk forward to the box? Both approaches are problematic as an unseen obstacle must be navigated or the bar must be re-racked in Instruction 21 by backing with limited field of vision. No solution for these issues is presented.

An additional related and exacerbating issue is presented in Instruction 6, where the trainee is told to look slightly up rather than at the target of movement. Instruction 3 suggests that the bar is placed on the base of the neck which implies the bar is placed on or near the 7^th cervical vertebrae, rather than on the more stable and comfortable shoulders. Combined with Instruction 4, lifting the elbows to the rear, this would increase the force placed on the spine of the 7^th cervical vertebra. Further, this written instruction differs from the bar position in their accompanying photographs of proper technique. Instructions 9-12 present, as written, physically improbable movement, or poorly written instruction. The trainee is instructed to stand away from the box at a distance of 12” to 18”, or a distance equal to the height of the box.

This specific set of instructions render the step up movement, as described, impossible to complete.

Then in subsequent instructions the trainee is instructed to place their foot on top of the box and, without leaning forward or bending the knee to more than 90^o, raise the entire body and barbell to a standing position on top of the box. This specific set of instructions render the step up movement, as described, impossible to complete. When the body is placed at an approximate femur length, or further, away from the elevated lead foot, the only way to make movement of the mass of the body upwards is to move it over the base of support (the lead foot), or create forward momentum towards the lead foot by leaning forward, and then extend the knees and hips to stand upward.

Instruction 12 says to shift weight to the lead leg and stand up without pushing off with the trailing leg and provides no explanation how to shift weight forward without forward lean or without aid from the trailing leg. It is worthwhile to note that in the images accompanying the written instructions, the trainee is about 4” away from the box not 12” to 18” away as mandated by the instruction. Further, in panels 2 and 3 it is clearly presented that there is significant torso lean forward required to accomplish the movement, which directly contradicts instructions 9 through 12.

Summary: The self-proclaimed world authoritative materials promulgated by the NSCA are inconsistent in recommendation, incomplete in scientific support, lacking definition, inadequate in anatomical description, and impractical in application. A clear and uniform description is not discernible. The said publication and recommendations create an environment where education of professionals on performing and teaching the step up is inconsistent and poorly described. The authorship, editorial, or graphical issues present may ultimately have negative effects on individual fitness results and the safety of the public, as correct technique cannot be reliably determined from the published statements, texts, and images.

Image by Dr. Lon Kilgore.

About the Author
Professor Lon Kilgore graduated from Lincoln University with a bachelor of science in biology and earned a Ph.D. in anatomy and physiology from Kansas State University. He has competed in weightlifting to the national level since 1972 and coached his first athletes to national-championship event medals in 1974. He has worked in the trenches, as a coach or scientific consultant, with athletes from rank novices to professionals and the Olympic elite, and as a collegiate strength coach. He has been a certifying instructor for USA Weightlifting for more than a decade and a frequent lecturer at events at the U.S. Olympic Training Center. His illustration, authorship, and co-authorship efforts include the best-selling books “Starting Strength” (first and second editions) and “Practical Programming for Strength Training” (first and second editions), recent releases “Anatomy Without a Scalpel” and “FIT,” magazine columns, textbook chapters, and numerous research journal publications. He is presently engaged in the most difficult task of his career: recreating the educational track to becoming a professional fitness practitioner. The second stage of this effort is the creation of a one-year university qualification in fitness practice at the University of the West of Scotland.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fgQHrTByb4

Editor’s Note: We are please to present the following article from Dr. Harold Goldstein. Dr. Goldstein is the Executive Director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy. He is also the Executive Director of Kick the Can.

Like a cat caught with the pet canary in its mouth, the world’s largest beverage company has guilt written all over its face. With little feathers still floating all over the house, Coca-Cola wants us to believe it is filled with remorse for spending millions of dollars manipulating science and paying-off researchers to do their bidding.

Two weeks ago, the New York Times exposed the Coke-funded Global Energy Balance Network as the industry front group that it is. Coke has been reeling ever since. Flash forward to last Friday when the damage control switch got flipped to hyper-drive. The company’s (soon-to-be-former?) Chairman and CEO, Muhtar Kent reached out to Wall Street Journal readers with a mea culpa of sorts, and a vow to “do better.” I mean, Oops!

Kent is making promises of “even more transparency” and being committed to “acting with integrity.” Come on! He’s running the ship that established a non-profit group of expert shills to tell us we just need to walk — or “Mixify” — a little more when we drink all that soda. (Ya, five miles of walking to burn off one 20 oz bottle!) His company spends billions each year on marketing–particularly targeting children and teens of color. He and his beverage industry brethren spend millions to try to defeat city and statewide measures, like taxes and warning labels. And the list goes on.

As if ripped from the “How to Mislead and Deceive” chapter in Big Tobacco’s master playbook, this promise to “do better” does nothing but underscore Coke’s continued effort to maintain its image of “Teaching the World to Sing,” rather than acknowledge that their iconic products are culprits in the skyrocketing diabetes epidemic.

To Muhtar Kent and his pals at Coca-Cola who think they’re in the clear after the WSJ apology, we say, we’re on to you.

Just like Americans eventually caught on to Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man, they’re catching on to Coke’s deceptions too. The truth seems to be coming out pretty fast these days.

No more little birdies for you, Mr. Kent!

Does Nike believe they are above respecting CrossFit’s intellectual property? History suggests so.

Nike has recently taken direct aim at the CrossFit market with the release of a shoe known as the “Metcon.” This shoe is obviously in competition with the Reebok CrossFit Nano shoe. Competition isn’t a bad thing, and generally leads to innovation and increased consumer choice. Unfortunately, Nike’s idea of competition seems to include blatant infringement of the CrossFit brand name.

Despite what Nike may think, individuals and companies are not free to use our intellectual property to promote their goods and services.  Indeed, over 12,000 independently owned affiliate gyms worldwide pay for a license to use the CrossFit® mark to brand their boxes. There are also many major corporations, like Twitter, HGST, and Google that have paid affiliation fees to provide CrossFit training for their employees.  Nike, Inc. isn’t one of them.

Nike’s use of our mark appears to be both widespread and significant. In 2011 we came across a photo describing a “Crossfit class” at Nike World Headquarters in Oregon.

Descriptions and evidence of CrossFit Classes being promoted inside Nike’s Headquarters  have trickled in steadily ever since. This tweet from Nike PR director, Heidi Burgett shows that group classes have been promoted as “crossfit” since at least 2012.

Sports Illustrated recently published an article describing Nike’s World Headquarters as containing “a Crossfit room.”

Additionally, prior to the release of Nike’s Metcon shoe, the brand name CrossFit could be found in both hyperlinks and in the source code of Nike.com pages promoting the Metcon shoe, a classic search engine optimization trick to avoid being caught stealing another brand’s trademark.  User reviews of the Nike Metcon referring to the shoe as a “CrossFit shoe” were also promoted on the website. As of today, Nike has not responded to a cease and desist sent by CrossFit, Inc.’s legal department regarding these issues.

Nike was also caught using the CrossFit trademark to sell shoes in their flagship store in Gangnam, Korea. They removed the term from their advertisements after receiving an earlier cease and desist from our legal team.

In some of the examples above (and many more we haven’t documented here) the use of the CrossFit trademark is once removed from Nike itself. Is this Nike’s way of trying to insulate themselves from liability by being able to blame someone else for infringing on our brand?  Is it their intent to sell more shoes through a false association with the CrossFit brand and community?  We’ve seen this exact behavior numerous times, mostly from unaffiliated gyms and gym chains looking to rip-off the CrossFit brand without getting into legal trouble.  It seems odd that Nike, one of the world’s largest apparel companies would want to (or have to) follow suit.

Editor’s Note: We are pleased to present this guest post by John Weatherly.

Most Need Strength AND Conditioning

People have different needs and goals for exercise programs. Many may want to get stronger or more powerful, have more endurance, and look as well as feel better. Similarly, most athletes require a combination of strength, power, and endurance that helps improve performance in their sport. There are extremes at the ends of a continuum such as a competitive lifter whose goal is to improve one rep max strength (1RM) and the marathoner on the opposite end from the competitive lifter. But, most individuals are between these extremes. This necessitates combined or concurrent training for strength or power and endurance. How compatible is training for strength/power and endurance at the same time? This is an important question because most people need to train both to some extent.

Former CrossFit Games champion Jason Khalipa has rowed 21,097 meters in 1:18:02 and clean and jerked 355 pounds.

Dr. William Kraemer gave a presentation on this topic at the 2012 NSCA National Conference, entitled Compatibility of Training Programs: Problems and Solutions.

Focusing in on major points of Dr. Kraemer’s presentation and what the NSCA has published on this topic since Dr. Kraemer’s talk in 2012 should help bring clarity to what the NSCA has done to improve our understanding of this area. Comparing how much work the NSCA has actually done on this topic in relation to their work on supplements and sports drinks will also help illuminate the NSCA’s motivation for research. Recall the NSCA’s mission statement is to “support and disseminate research-based knowledge and its practical application to improve athletic performance and fitness.”

Motor Unit Overview

Before examining Dr. Kraemer’s presentation remember that a motor unit (MU) is a motor nerve and the muscle fibers it innervates.

Type II motor units (MU) are fast-twitch while Type I are slow-twitch. The average person will have a fairly even mix of these while a world-class sprinter will likely be blessed with much more Type II MU. Similarly, a world-class endurance athlete would be endowed with more Type I MU. Type II MU are suited to speed, power, strength, and size. Type I MU are associated with oxidative functions or endurance. So, what about training for both strength/power and endurance at the same time? That’s what Dr. Kraemer’s presentation is about. I encourage you to watch the entire presentation but I’ve listed time points that correspond to sections that are focused on.

I want to emphasize many of the studies Dr. Kraemer talks about in his presentation were NOT published by the NSCA but in other journals. It’s important to realize this area of concurrent training or training compatibility as Dr. Kraemer’s presentation is titled has only been studied for the last thirty-five years or so.

The Literature on Concurrent Training: Slim Pickin’

Dr. William Kraemer: http://www.nsca.com/videos/conference_lectures/compatibility_of_training_programs/

The first study Dr. Kraemer mentions is the work of Hickson in 1980. The Hickson study used untrained subjects who lifted three days a week and did distance running on the other three days with one day of rest. At the seven week point, there was a strength plateau and then decrease. Maximal oxygen consumption increased. So, the resistance training did not bother endurance (6:58).

In 1985 Dudley et al. did a study that used three days of intense cycling intervals (5 x 5 minutes hitting peak oxygen consumption during each) and isokinetic training using 2 sets of 30 reps on alternate days. At high velocity power there was no difference. So, perhaps the design of the training program influenced high velocity adaptations in a negative way (8:50).

By the mid 1980’s from a few studies such as Dudley et al., it was known that high velocity power and strength may be compromised by endurance training. The opposite was not true. Strength or power training enhanced endurance performance.

In the late 1980’s Hickson did a study where he added strength training to elite 5 and 10K runners. He put them on heavy 5RM strength training using exercises such as squats. It improved their hill running and sprint capabilities racing. There was no change in hypertrophy (muscle size) in these runners (12:44).

Dr. Kraemer states in the early 1990’s studies were performed that examined the combination of aerobic training and resistance training but made the mistake of using isokinetic testing even though the training wasn’t on isokinetic equipment. It seems somewhat amusing that Dr. Kraemer draws attention to these poorly done studies by exercise scientists (16:19).

Nelson et al. published a study in 1990 that looked at the effects of concurrently training for strength and endurance on muscle fiber characteristics (15:32). Dr. Kraemer emphasizes that cycling, which doesn’t involve the eccentric stress and pounding of running, may not result in the attenuation of strength that has been observed with strength training and distance running programs on alternate days (17:18).

Does cycling interfere with strength less than running?

Also in 1990, Sale et al. examined alternate or same day concurrent resistance and aerobic training. They used light weights (15-20 reps) which basically stresses the same MU as the endurance training. This group of researchers saw better results with the concurrent training performed on the same day (17:45).

Dr. Kraemer becomes somewhat animated talking about studies on training compatibility with a dramatic voice inflection about study design saying: “What are you putting together?” He sounds agitated with the training program design in some of these studies put together by exercise scientists (18:37).

McCarthy et al. in the mid 90’s did sets of six reps for resistance training combined with aerobic training at 70% of heart rate reserve on the same day with untrained subjects and did not observe any training incompatibility (18:57). Dr. Kraemer mentions this was one of the first studies to bring reason to the training program! Once again, this seems to indicate Dr. Kraemer thinks quite a few of these studies were poorly done.

At 20:55, Dr. Kraemer mentions work Dr. Andrew Fry did many years ago. I remember speaking with Dr. Fry on the phone about the study he did on football players at the U of Memphis (a rare study on college athletes). Players were getting stronger, more powerful and agile until the football coaches interfered adding conditioning sessions that Fry described as “sprint until you puke” types of drills before spring football practice (43:05). The players became slower and weaker from the football coaches invading the strength and conditioning program. Dr. Kraemer, in talking about the Fry study on football players, just says the football coaches wrecked the program.

Military service members need to develop both strength and endurance concurrently.

Dr. Kraemer mentions an “ideal study” he did with the military that included four days of training a week. Two days were short rest supersets for resistance training while the other two days were heavy lifting and intense interval runs. Rest days were Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday. The study was ideal in that subjects were trained and all they did was eat, train, and rest. Only the group that did just strength training (no intervals) increased lower and upper body power. Additionally, the group doing the interval training did not improve oxygen consumption. So, even with metabolic conditioning, this seems to indicate those who are already highly trained will not improve maximal oxygen consumption (22:06).

Muscle fiber transitions are mentioned (26:14) and there’s a slide of Dr. Kraemer’s showing fiber size adaptations for endurance training, strength training, and combination training (27:06).

Dr. Kraemer talks about MU and athletes (30:45) and mentions hard data is hard to come by because study designs don’t address this (34:09). An exercise antagonism slide is shown that emphasizes the need for periodization, reduced volumes, and rest (43:05).

Olympic Decathlete Ashton Eaton has run 1500m in 4:14 and thrown a 16-pound shot over 50 feet. Photo: http://www.slate.com/blogs/five_ring_circus/2012/08/09/ashton_eaton_olympics_2012_will_the_american_star_make_decathlon_popular_again_a_look_at_the_rise_and_fall_and_rise_and_fall_of_the_olympics_marquee_event_.html

NSCA Publications on Concurrent Training 2012-2015

From Dr. Kraemer’s presentation we can infer concurrent training has been studied for only the last thirty-five years. Additionally, many studies were on untrained subjects, not long-term (most 12 weeks or less in duration), and according to Dr. Kraemer limited by poor training program design (18:37) and a lack of hard data (34:09). It’s obvious a lot of work needs to be done in this area. So, what has the NSCA actually published on this topic since Dr. Kraemer’s presentation to add to this limited body of knowledge on concurrent training?

Using a criteria that a study had to be at least six weeks long to include, I counted sixteen concurrent strength and endurance training studies published in JSCR since Kraemer’s presentation in 2012. One of these is the meta-analysis of Wilson et al. (2012) that Dr. Kraemer mentions in his presentation. This Wilson et al. meta-analysis basically concluded resistance training combined with running (but not so much with cycling) tended to reduce strength and hypertrophy. The interference of endurance with strength and hypertrophy are related to the modality, frequency, and duration of the endurance training utilized according to Wilson et al. (2012).

NSCA Publications on Supplements and Sports Drinks 2012-2015

Graph by Dr. Lon Kilgore

NSCA published close to twice as many studies on supplements and sports drinks as they have on concurrent training programs from 2012-2015.

In the same time frame since Dr. Kraemer’s presentation in 2012 on training compatibility, I counted a total of twenty-eight studies the NSCA has published in JSCR on supplements and sports drinks. Thus, the NSCA published close to twice as many studies on supplements and sports drinks as they have on concurrent training programs from 2012-2015.

One has to wonder if this is related to NSCA sponsors such as Gatorade, MusclePharm, and Bodybuilding.com. These companies and others in the supplement industry that sponsor the NSCA may be exerting their influence to publish studies on supplements and sports drinks instead of exercise programs and sports performance.

The Need for Studies on CrossFit

At the 2009 CrossFit Games, Mikko Salo finished second in a long-distance run and then reached 495-lb. in the deadlift ladder.

Anybody remotely familiar with CrossFit knows the great variety of WODs. These obviously aren’t just combining running and resistance training or cycling and resistance training. For example, the benchmark workout Fran is thrusters and pullups. A workout the next day could be 800 meter runs and lifting a 125 lb medicine ball up and over for 10 reps and several rounds. The following day could be working up to a 1RM clean or front squat and on and on. This real world of CrossFit doesn’t align with the limited academic work the NSCA has published on concurrent training.

One must wonder why the NSCA is publishing so many studies on supplements and sports drinks when Dr. Kraemer himself pointed out study design flaws (18:37) and said hard data on concurrent training was hard to come by (34:09). Instead of doing studies comparing CrossFit with other concurrent training programs or studying the major American sports of football, basketball, and baseball – the NSCA spends more time and effort publishing studies on supplements and sports drinks.

Reference
Wilson, JM et al. Concurrent training: a meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. J. Strength Cond. Res (26) (8): 2293-307, 2012.

About the Author: John T. Weatherly has undergraduate and graduate degrees in exercise science. He was a research assistant to the former Head of Sports Physiology for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) and has helped with conditioning programs for athletes in Olympic sports as well as professional baseball, college football and an NBA player. In the 90’s, John published and reviewed articles for the NSCA and was an NSCA media contact on the sport of baseball. He helped initiate the first study on a rotary inertia exercise device at the University of Southern California (USC) and has consulted with the exercise industry on various topics, including vibration.

Editor’s Note: We are pleased to present this guest post by Dr. Lon Kilgore.

A new article was recently released by Lu and colleagues entitled “CrossFit-related cervical internal carotid artery dissection.” Many detractors of CrossFit training have seized upon this article as a basis for statements that CrossFit causes injury (6). There are a number of reasons why such accusations lack merit.

The first and most important reason is that the authors, in the sixth sentence of the paper, state that “direct causality cannot be proven.” However, that does not prevent the authors, and others, from attempting to present arguments that paint CrossFit exercise programming as an injurious evil.

Image by Dr. Lon Kilgore.

Shaky background

In the literature review, the Lu article refers to a 2014 paper, “The Case Files: CrossFit-Induced Carotid Artery Dissection,” in the Emergency Medicine News that reports a cerebral artery dissection and attributes it directly to participation in CrossFit training (3). It is both sad and telling that the introductory scientific background for that particular paper penned by Fox and King (staff at Ohio State University), is solely derived from a newspaper article and a secondary resource quote of opinion from a chiropractor – a discipline often maligned for inducing cervical artery dissection through cervical manipulation (1,9).

The use of the Fox and King paper is not a strong base of support. The single patient in the paper was a 33-year-old male with pre-existing neural and behavioral issues (migraines, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) who reported the onset of a migraine during a CrossFit workout. However there is no specific description of the workout activities other than “heavy lifting.” There is no mention of the lift done, where it laid in the WOD, what weight was on the bar, how many reps were completed, the patient’s training status and history, the patient’s body weight and fitness level, or whether the workout was at an affiliate or at home. There was no consideration of the underlying pathology that induced the repeated migraines the trainee experienced prior to CrossFit. Vis a vis, there is no actual evidence that the patient was actually doing CrossFit, how CrossFit retroactively induced the underlying and pre-existing pathology responsible for the reported migraines, or of how the un-named exercise was potentially injurious. It is notable, in respect to an accurate history of the circumstances that 30 days elapsed between the proposed injurious event and the trainee actually seeking care and recollecting the events.

Lu and associates also follow the same non-academic and non-scientific approach to establishing an introductory background of risk for CrossFit participation as Fox and King. They specifically state “Other reports have documented cases of rhabdomyolysis after intense CrossFit workouts,” a derivation not from any clinical or scientific paper but a regurgitation of a newspaper article containing no actual evidence. Two sets of authors cite newspaper articles as a valid reports of epidemiology … and the editorial staff at these journals is OK with that?

The poorly elaborated literature review provided by the Lu paper (and the Fox paper) seems to demonstrate a quest for headlines and citations rather than an objective attempt at an in depth exploration of injuries in hopes of preventing similar injuries in the future.

Two sets of authors cite newspaper articles as a valid reports of epidemiology … and the editorial staff at these journals is OK with that?

What does the literature say about cervical artery dissection and exercise?

Human arteries. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artery#/media/File:Arterial_System_en.svg

The basis of the claims levied by the papers of Lu and Fox appears to center upon a contention that CrossFit training in the form of lifting, throwing, calisthenics, gymnastic movement, and weight-bearing exercises, induced the dissection of cervical arteries (a separation of the layers of an artery that can lead to aneurysm).

Boldly stating such allegations suggests that these talented clinicians were not aware of the body of literature surrounding the etiology of dissections relative to exercise. It has been reported that the reason dissections occur in non-symptomatic and apparently healthy individuals is currently unknown (10) and that dissections can occur spontaneously without apparent external cause or after common daily activities. Rubenstein’s paper (10) further asserts that trivial trauma is often presumed to be a cause of dissection, but this assumption is unwarranted as there was no published evidence suggesting that common neck movements pose a risk for inducing dissection.

Spontaneous dissections of cervical arteries occur in the general population at a rate of 3 per 100,000 (5), a number also presented by Lu and coworkers. If, to play devil’s advocate, we consider only those 1,625,000 people who train at CrossFit affiliates (estimated from 13,000 facilities times 125 members), that provides a rate of injury of 1 per 406,250. If we added in the home CrossFitters, that rate would become even smaller. Given the much lower than normal rate of occurrence, it appears as though CrossFit training might be protective of dissection, not inductive. But we won’t claim that finding, even with a large data set, as hard fact and beat our chests … after all it is not currently published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The Hsu and Sung review of relevant research and clinical publications provides other interesting information in that 13-20% of the strokes in young people can be attributed to spontaneous dissection. The patients in all five cases in the Lu and Fox papers are of the same demographic.

A review by Frisoni & Anzola (4) stated “The paucity of these data does not allow any conclusion, but young age and previous good health of almost all patients suggest that risk factors for vascular disease are probably not relevant” and that observation led to a concluding remark, “patients at risk cannot be identified a priori”. It appears that individuals who will eventually suffer a cervical artery dissection cannot be identified by medical screening. This simply means that there is no means, other than pre-participation MRI, to rule out a pre-existing pathology as the primary agent for these injuries.

The fact is that an attempt to establish an association of arterial dissection to exercise participation, during or after, has only been attempted in a small handful of papers. The general consensus is that the neck must be actively involved in repetitive torsional (turning the head laterally to maximal rotation) or receive high force compressive movement (of similar magnitude to a fist strike). The activities that have been considered for potential association with dissection range from turning to look to the rear while driving, yoga, golf, tennis, and martial arts (2,7,11). In none of the five case studies in the Lu and Fox papers were these conditions reliably demonstrated, if a description of the activities occurring at the time of injury was elaborated at all.

Powerful punches can result in arterial dissection. Image source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Boxing#/media/File:Ouch-boxing-footwork.jpg

Dissections are reported in the literature with no activity, light activity, moderate activity, and intense activity. Furthermore, pre-existing conditions can never be ruled out post-injury. Therefore, can a correlation, let alone causation, be established between dissection and any type of exercise? An elaborate surgical study of patients presenting with dissections indicates that even when a traumatic event is reported by the patient to have occurred prior to experiencing symptoms, only 18% of dissected arteries demonstrate signs of such trauma (8). This might be construed to indicate that prior physical events are generally unrelated to dissection.

Can a correlation, let alone causation, be established between dissection and any type of exercise?

It is impossible for trainers to know who is at risk and to prevent a spontaneous, or exercise-induced dissection, just as it is for physicians. There are many reports describing difficulties in diagnosis and prevention as the norm in medical practice. It is unlikely that the exercises included in the training sessions caused the dissection, as the trainees were already accustomed to hard physical effort from their suspected exercise history. This is a derivation from the authors’ (Lu, Fox and their co-authors) tone and implications that the trainees were regular CrossFitters actively engaged in training specific to the CrossFit system (although this cannot be demonstrated by the papers).

There are also many critical unknowns in these papers. The exercise load pattern on the days of injury is unknown. The only hint of an overload (which is not contraindicated and is recommended as a strategy to improve fitness by the American College of Sports Medicine) is the statement in Case 1 of the Lu report where the trainee used “20% more weight”. Twenty percent of 50 pounds is simply adding 10 more pounds, an easy and normal progression in the squat. In what context was the reported 20% increase? The authors should have investigated CrossFit (and the conditions of injury) more fully as it is never the norm to set a work output target at some arbitrary supra-maximal level. Rather, exercise sessions are demonstrably scaled to the individual’s self-selected level of exertion. In the case study descriptions, there were no repeated torsional excursions of the neck and there were no force traumas to the neck as part of the exercise sessions. In fact, neither of the papers, Lu or Fox, provided any useful information about the training or trainee that would have helped them make a case. The bases of their conclusion are therefore specious. It is exceedingly disingenuous and biased, given the information presented by the authors and that available in the literature, to suggest that CrossFit training was the primary agent inducing the dissections as alleged. 

REFERENCES

1. Chung CL, Côté P, Stern P, L’espérance G. The Association Between Cervical Spine Manipulation and Carotid Artery Dissection: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J Manipulative Physiol Ther doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2013.09.005, 2013. (PubMed)
2. DeBehnke DJ, Brady W. Vertebral artery dissection due to minor neck trauma. Journal of Emergency Medicine 12(1):27-31, 1994. (PubMed)
3. Fox A, King A. The case files: CrossFit-induced carotid artery dissection. Emergency Medicine News, 2014. (Published Article)
4. Frisoni GB, Anzola GP. Vertebrobasilar ischemia after neck motion. Stroke 22:1452-1460, 1991. (PubMed)
5. Hsu YC, Sung SF. Spontaneous Vertebral Artery Dissection with Thunderclap Headache: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Acta Neurology Taiwan 23:24-28, 2012. (Published Article)
6. Lu A, Shen P, Lee P, Dahlin B, Waldau B, Nidecker AE, Nundkumar A, Bobinski M. CrossFit-related cervical internal carotid artery dissection. Emerg Radiol 22(4):449-52, 2015. (PubMed)
7. Maroon JC, Gardner P, Abla AA, El-Kadi H, Bost J. “Golfer’s stroke”: golf-induced stroke from vertebral artery dissection. Surgical Neurology 67-163-168, 2007. (PubMed)
8. Muller BT, Luther B, Hort W, Neumann-Haefelin T, Aulich A, Sandmann W. Surgical treatment of 50 carotid dissections: indications and results. J Vasc Surg 31:980-8, 2000. (PubMed)
9. Norris JW, Beletsky V, Nadareishvili ZG. Sudden neck movement and cervical artery dissection. Canadian Medical Association Journal 163(1): 38-40, 2000. (Published Article)
10. Rubinstein SM, Peerdeman SM, van Tulder MW, Riphagen I, Haldeman S. A systematic review of the risk factors for cervical artery dissection. Stroke 36:1575-1580, 2005. (Published Article)
11. Sakaguchi M, Kitigawa K, Hougaku H, Hashimoto H, Nagai Y, Yamagami H, Ohtsuki T, Oku N, Hashikawa K, Matsushita K, Matsumoto M, Hori M. Mechanical compression of the extracranial vertebral artery during neck rotation. Neurology 61:845-847, 2003. (Pub Med)

About the Author
Professor Lon Kilgore graduated from Lincoln University with a bachelor of science in biology and earned a Ph.D. in anatomy and physiology from Kansas State University. He has competed in weightlifting to the national level since 1972 and coached his first athletes to national-championship event medals in 1974. He has worked in the trenches, as a coach or scientific consultant, with athletes from rank novices to professionals and the Olympic elite, and as a collegiate strength coach. He has been a certifying instructor for USA Weightlifting for more than a decade and a frequent lecturer at events at the U.S. Olympic Training Center. His illustration, authorship, and co-authorship efforts include the best-selling books “Starting Strength” (first and second editions) and “Practical Programming for Strength Training” (first and second editions), recent releases “Anatomy Without a Scalpel” and “FIT,” magazine columns, textbook chapters, and numerous research journal publications. He is presently engaged in the most difficult task of his career: recreating the educational track to becoming a professional fitness practitioner. The second stage of this effort is the creation of a one-year university qualification in fitness practice at the University of the West of Scotland.

Obesity: Does it have anything to do with diet?

Coca-Cola and American College of Sports Medicine scientists have attempted to challenge the link between dietary patterns and obesity.

On July 17th, 2015, CrossFit CEO and Founder Greg Glassman released his second tweet ever. He exposed a joint Coca-Cola and the ACSM’s project, the “Global Energy Balance Network.”

source: https://twitter.com/CrossFitCEO/status/622126523772858368

This message reached the mainstream media in August. New York Times health reporter Anahad O’Connor broke the story to the press with a front-page feature, Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away From Bad Diets.

O’Connor detailed how Coke’s scientists blame a lack of exercise, instead of sugar and calories, for obesity and diabetes. But Coke and ACSM’s Global Energy Balance Network goes beyond defending added sugar and processed food. These Coke scientists even challenge the idea that food has anything to do with the obesity epidemic. O’Connor cited a video where GEBN executive Steven Blair stated,

Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is that they’re eating too much, eating too much, eating too much, blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks and so on. And there’s really virtually no compelling evidence that that in fact is the cause.

But disputing the link between food and obesity was a step too far, even for Coca-Cola science. Ten days later, Blair had retracted the video and released a statement to the Global Energy Balance Network attempting to explain himself.

Blair’s retraction is confusing, perhaps intentionally. First Blair blames the press: “a statement I made in this video has been used by some to brand GEBN as a network focusing only on physical activity.”

So did the press misrepresent Blair and the GEBN? Did O’Connor take Blair’s words out of context to spin his story?

No. Blair actually did claim there’s no “compelling evidence” linking food to obesity. And he knows it – hence his retraction. Blair admits his video qualifies as a “dismissal of diet as a cause of obesity.”

Furthermore, Blair confesses that his dismissal of diet did a “disservice” to his fellow Coke scientists at the Global Energy Balance Network. In other words, it’s his own fault, not the New York Times’.

While Blair ascribes his false statements to “passionate” feelings, O’Connor’s New York Times piece supplies 3.5 million more likely reasons,

… the University of South Carolina disclosed that Dr. Blair had received more than $3.5 million in funding from Coke for research projects since 2008.

The Global Energy Balance Network took Blair’s video down, but fortunately the CrossFit Youtube account preserved it:

To the Bitter End: ACSM and the Global Energy Balance Network

The otherwise excellent press about the Global Energy Balance Network missed a crucial player: the American College of Sports Medicine.

Steven Blair, Gregory A. Hand and James O. Hill helped to found the GEBN. The Global Energy Balance Network’s links to the ACSM are extensive.

For example, Blair was president of the ACSM from 1996-1997. And he’s on the advisory board of another Coca-Cola and ACSM project, Exercise is Medicine. Hand is an ACSM fellow who is featured in ACSM textbooks. And James O. Hill gave the keynote speech at the ACSM’s annual meeting this year. Consider this seven-second segment:

While Hill mentions McDonald’s in this video, not Coca-Cola, he’s still spreading a corporate-funded message – Hill serves on McDonald’s Global Advisory Council.

The Global Energy Balance Network has become a synonym for corrupt science, and Big Soda has become the new Big Tobacco. Will the ACSM subtly back away from Coca-Cola and Energy Balance?

It’s too late for that. ACSM has already committed its 2016 annual meeting to spreading the “Basic Science of Energy Balance.” 

CrossFit HQ looks forward to attending our second ACSM annual meeting. We hope to see you there.

http://www.acsm.org/home/2016/05/31/default-calendar/acsm’s-63rd-annual-meeting-7th-world-congress-on-exercise-is-medicine-and-world-congress-on-the-basic-science-of-energy-balance