Thread: CrossFit?
View Single Post
      03-08-2018, 11:26 AM   #50

Drives: X6 m
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: TEXAS

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by hooligan_clt View Post
Links to your study, please. It's not the one from Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2013), I hope.

...After an investigation, the NCSA retracted the original data and issued accurate findings in the October issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Their erratum states, “After the article was published, 10 of the 11 participants who did not complete the study have provided their reasons for not finishing, with only 2 mentioning injury or health conditions that prevented them from completing follow-up testing.”...

No Kool Aid drinking here. Sorry to disappoint.
...A total of 486 CrossFit participants completed the survey, and 386 met the inclusion criteria. The overall injury rate was determined to be 19.4%...
The injury incidence rate associated with CrossFit training was low, and comparable to other forms of recreational fitness activities. Previous injury and gender were identified as risk factors for injury, whilst the role of movement competency in this setting warrants further investigation
(emphasis mine)
..."Injury rates with CrossFit training are similar to that reported in the literature for sports such as Olympic weight-lifting, power-lifting and gymnastics and lower than competitive contact sports such as rugby union and rugby league," the researchers reported.

And that rate is positively puny compared to sports like soccer, skiing, and football. Even running may be more dangerous. A 2010 study followed recreational runners for eight weeks as they trained for a 4-mile race. 30.1 injuries were reported for every 1,000 hours of running
(emphasis mine)

You were saying?
Did you even read these pieces you posted thoroughly?

The fact remains using your numbers 80+ people out of over 100 sustain an injury! They only retracted it since they were being threatened with a lawsuit and that 2013 NCBI piece was a political piece while litigation was being approached! The basis is fundamentally skewed from the start! Frankly it's a complete laughing stock and shows while a lot of what NCBI releases needs to be taken with a grain of salt! It's basically the Wikipedia for science!

Then to see 20% out of 486 sustained injury! Really, this is your support? That's 100 people basically that actually were willing to say they were injured, not counting the ego driven folks that touched through it!

Then your last article, hilarious! No crap aggressive lateral motion such as football, basketball, and soccer will sustain greater injury! We're also comparing Apple's to oranges!

Please enlighten me, what plane of motion are we talking about again?......

I'll let the fact C.F. has been dying for the past 2yrs speak for itself!

Last edited by Performancedieselpros; 03-08-2018 at 11:51 AM..