It should also be noted that achieving a FFMI over 25 natural would be very possible…being a world class athlete at +25 much, much more difficult.
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
I feel like that would only be a problem if the authors were just gaining notoriety. AR has already been quoted as an expert in a popular media outlet and has been referenced in medical journals. The average person will see that and assume that person is the authority regardless of their prior drug dealings. JR also has already consulted with media outlets like 20/20. These aren’t guys who are only known for their involvement with drugs. They have already established themselves as reliable sources in the media’s eyes. [/quote]
Yep, their credentials are some of the best in the business.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It should also be noted that achieving a FFMI over 25 natural would be very possible…being a world class athlete at +25 much, much more difficult.[/quote]
Considering they arrived at the number 25 based on a wide variety of natty/assisted lifters and cross referenced it with a large number of Mr Universe (or was it another comp?) winners “very possible” isn’t exactly how I would phrase it haha
Good read, I’m friends with a couple avid crossfitters and I’m looking forward to having a discussion with them on this.
Edit: I do believe that as crossfit grows there will be some of the competitors to fail drug tests if nothing more then to prove HQ’s credibility but it will never be there poster boys, Froning, Baily, etc.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It should also be noted that achieving a FFMI over 25 natural would be very possible…being a world class athlete at +25 much, much more difficult.[/quote]
Considering they arrived at the number 25 based on a wide variety of natty/assisted lifters and cross referenced it with a large number of Mr Universe (or was it another comp?) winners “very possible” isn’t exactly how I would phrase it haha[/quote]
Yea, you are probably right…within the realm of possibility would be better wording.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It should also be noted that achieving a FFMI over 25 natural would be very possible…being a world class athlete at +25 much, much more difficult.[/quote]
Considering they arrived at the number 25 based on a wide variety of natty/assisted lifters and cross referenced it with a large number of Mr Universe (or was it another comp?) winners “very possible” isn’t exactly how I would phrase it haha[/quote]
Yea, you are probably right…within the realm of possibility would be better wording.
[/quote]
Agreed.
It’s not physically impossible but if the number well exceeds 25 I would bet money on PED’s being involved.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It should also be noted that achieving a FFMI over 25 natural would be very possible…being a world class athlete at +25 much, much more difficult.[/quote]
Considering they arrived at the number 25 based on a wide variety of natty/assisted lifters and cross referenced it with a large number of Mr Universe (or was it another comp?) winners “very possible” isn’t exactly how I would phrase it haha[/quote]
Yea, you are probably right…within the realm of possibility would be better wording.
[/quote]
Agreed.
It’s not physically impossible but if the number well exceeds 25 I would bet money on PED’s being involved.[/quote]
I agree, especially if they are dominating metcon intensive crossfit games wods at that level of muscularity and strength.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It should also be noted that achieving a FFMI over 25 natural would be very possible…being a world class athlete at +25 much, much more difficult.[/quote]
Considering they arrived at the number 25 based on a wide variety of natty/assisted lifters and cross referenced it with a large number of Mr Universe (or was it another comp?) winners “very possible” isn’t exactly how I would phrase it haha[/quote]
Yea, you are probably right…within the realm of possibility would be better wording.
[/quote]
Agreed.
It’s not physically impossible but if the number well exceeds 25 I would bet money on PED’s being involved.[/quote]
I think that’s what’s at stake here, and really what the authors are alluding to. There isn’t a single statistic that they presented that, on its own, is damning of these athletes. It’s about what happens when you look at all the data. They mentioned that one could assume Eugene Sandow was about 27. Eugene Sandow was one individual in an entire generation, and generally recognized as the most muscular man in the world at the time. How likely is it that 8 (I think) of the top 10 crossfit athletes are above 25, and there are presumably many, many more in the next, say, top 40 crossfit athletes? AND these guys can complete triathlons? And Clean and Jerk 300+?
It’s funny how the general public reacts to this sort of stuff though. When Barry Bonds was a 28, people used to (and still do) talk about how it was so visually obvious that he was doing steroids. Yet you have a Crossfit athlete who’s even higher on this scale, and some of the same people are saying ‘no way! He’s tested! Crossfit athletes are all clean!’ I can’t wrap my brain around this stuff.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It should also be noted that achieving a FFMI over 25 natural would be very possible…being a world class athlete at +25 much, much more difficult.[/quote]
Considering they arrived at the number 25 based on a wide variety of natty/assisted lifters and cross referenced it with a large number of Mr Universe (or was it another comp?) winners “very possible” isn’t exactly how I would phrase it haha[/quote]
Yea, you are probably right…within the realm of possibility would be better wording.
[/quote]
Agreed.
It’s not physically impossible but if the number well exceeds 25 I would bet money on PED’s being involved.[/quote]
I agree, especially if they are dominating metcon intensive crossfit games wods at that level of muscularity and strength.
[/quote]
I feel like if your FFMI is higher in the group the worse you will be at the metcon shit. Look at Khalipa. Highest FFMI by far. The only reason he does really well is because his strength is through the roof. Had he been decent at metcon wods he would be the fittest man in the world right now. Froning on the other hand has moderate-high strength (relative to the field) but is unreal at metcon wods.
This is one of arguments cross fitters (including Froning) have used to defend themselves against steroid claims. They all like to say well why would we take steroids. They may make you big and strong but they slow you down.
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It should also be noted that achieving a FFMI over 25 natural would be very possible…being a world class athlete at +25 much, much more difficult.[/quote]
Considering they arrived at the number 25 based on a wide variety of natty/assisted lifters and cross referenced it with a large number of Mr Universe (or was it another comp?) winners “very possible” isn’t exactly how I would phrase it haha[/quote]
Yea, you are probably right…within the realm of possibility would be better wording.
[/quote]
Agreed.
It’s not physically impossible but if the number well exceeds 25 I would bet money on PED’s being involved.[/quote]
I agree, especially if they are dominating metcon intensive crossfit games wods at that level of muscularity and strength.
[/quote]
They all like to say well why would we take steroids. They may make you big and strong but they slow you down. [/quote]
As the mainstream population eats it up…circa McGuire and Sosa and Bonds. “steroids don’t make you hit the ball better”
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
It’s about what happens when you look at all the data. They mentioned that one could assume Eugene Sandow was about 27. Eugene Sandow was one individual in an entire generation, and generally recognized as the most muscular man in the world at the time. How likely is it that 8 (I think) of the top 10 crossfit athletes are above 25, and there are presumably many, many more in the next, say, top 40 crossfit athletes?[/quote]
Considering that the world population is nearly 8x that of Sandow’s time, I don’t think this fact is too crazy, taken in isolation. I think sometimes the effects of population growth gets lost, especially when talking about the prevalance of outliers.
There’s also been a lot of changes in attitudes toward muscularity, lifting, and just general physical fitness that skews whether people with potential would ever do anything to realize that potential.
But yes, I agree with what you’re saying.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
It’s about what happens when you look at all the data. They mentioned that one could assume Eugene Sandow was about 27. Eugene Sandow was one individual in an entire generation, and generally recognized as the most muscular man in the world at the time. How likely is it that 8 (I think) of the top 10 crossfit athletes are above 25, and there are presumably many, many more in the next, say, top 40 crossfit athletes?[/quote]
Considering that the world population is nearly 8x that of Sandow’s time, I don’t think this fact is too crazy, taken in isolation. I think sometimes the effects of population growth gets lost, especially when talking about the prevalance of outliers.
There’s also been a lot of changes in attitudes toward muscularity, lifting, and just general physical fitness that skews whether people with potential would ever do anything to realize that potential.
But yes, I agree with what you’re saying.[/quote]
Good points, and while the population has indeed grown, the best athletes in the world are still going to compete in major league sports that can set them up for life.
Crossfit is still getting the second stringers.
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
This is one of arguments cross fitters (including Froning) have used to defend themselves against steroid claims. They all like to say well why would we take steroids. They may make you big and strong but they slow you down. [/quote]
Just ask Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Tyson Gay, Assafa Powell and Sherone Simpson (just to have a short list of names)… PED’s definitely slow you down 
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
It’s funny how the general public reacts to this sort of stuff though. When Barry Bonds was a 28, people used to (and still do) talk about how it was so visually obvious that he was doing steroids. Yet you have a Crossfit athlete who’s even higher on this scale, and some of the same people are saying ‘no way! He’s tested! Crossfit athletes are all clean!’ I can’t wrap my brain around this stuff.[/quote]
Simple- hero worship.
Crossfit is its own cult of personality with an incredibly large number of followers, and Rich Froning and the like are its avatars.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
It’s about what happens when you look at all the data. They mentioned that one could assume Eugene Sandow was about 27. Eugene Sandow was one individual in an entire generation, and generally recognized as the most muscular man in the world at the time. How likely is it that 8 (I think) of the top 10 crossfit athletes are above 25, and there are presumably many, many more in the next, say, top 40 crossfit athletes?[/quote]
Considering that the world population is nearly 8x that of Sandow’s time, I don’t think this fact is too crazy, taken in isolation. I think sometimes the effects of population growth gets lost, especially when talking about the prevalance of outliers.
There’s also been a lot of changes in attitudes toward muscularity, lifting, and just general physical fitness that skews whether people with potential would ever do anything to realize that potential.
But yes, I agree with what you’re saying.[/quote]
I think that fact would be crazy. Even removing the athletic accomplishments from the discussion. Nearly every National Crossfit competitor is going to come in at or around that 25 number, many of whom will come in significantly higher. Crossfit is a niche sport. At 8x the population with no training differences, you’d be looking at 8ish Sandows. Let’s say you could multiply that by 10 for training/nutrition differences (I’m being SO generous with that number). That’s 80 guys on the planet. And 30+ of them compete in the niche sport that is crossfit? Even ‘taken in isolation’, those numbers are absurd.
Glassman is what a 10?
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
It’s about what happens when you look at all the data. They mentioned that one could assume Eugene Sandow was about 27. Eugene Sandow was one individual in an entire generation, and generally recognized as the most muscular man in the world at the time. How likely is it that 8 (I think) of the top 10 crossfit athletes are above 25, and there are presumably many, many more in the next, say, top 40 crossfit athletes?[/quote]
Considering that the world population is nearly 8x that of Sandow’s time, I don’t think this fact is too crazy, taken in isolation. I think sometimes the effects of population growth gets lost, especially when talking about the prevalance of outliers.
There’s also been a lot of changes in attitudes toward muscularity, lifting, and just general physical fitness that skews whether people with potential would ever do anything to realize that potential.
But yes, I agree with what you’re saying.[/quote]
I think that fact would be crazy. Even removing the athletic accomplishments from the discussion. Nearly every National Crossfit competitor is going to come in at or around that 25 number, many of whom will come in significantly higher. Crossfit is a niche sport. At 8x the population with no training differences, you’d be looking at 8ish Sandows. Let’s say you could multiply that by 10 for training/nutrition differences (I’m being SO generous with that number). That’s 80 guys on the planet. And 30+ of them compete in the niche sport that is crossfit? Even ‘taken in isolation’, those numbers are absurd.
[/quote]
Right, but besides Sandow there was Hackenshmidt, Cyr, Otto Arco, the Saxons, Thomas Inch, Goerner.
At that point in time, it wasn’t like anyone was really making any money from athletics or sports – unless you were a showman like Sandow et al. – so I think it’s a fair assumption that there were several others with potential who simply chose not to go in that direction with their lives.
So I do think it’s likely there are many more people today that match Sandow’s level.
But really, I just don’t think Sandow was a 27.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
It’s about what happens when you look at all the data. They mentioned that one could assume Eugene Sandow was about 27. Eugene Sandow was one individual in an entire generation, and generally recognized as the most muscular man in the world at the time. How likely is it that 8 (I think) of the top 10 crossfit athletes are above 25, and there are presumably many, many more in the next, say, top 40 crossfit athletes?[/quote]
Considering that the world population is nearly 8x that of Sandow’s time, I don’t think this fact is too crazy, taken in isolation. I think sometimes the effects of population growth gets lost, especially when talking about the prevalance of outliers.
There’s also been a lot of changes in attitudes toward muscularity, lifting, and just general physical fitness that skews whether people with potential would ever do anything to realize that potential.
But yes, I agree with what you’re saying.[/quote]
I think that fact would be crazy. Even removing the athletic accomplishments from the discussion. Nearly every National Crossfit competitor is going to come in at or around that 25 number, many of whom will come in significantly higher. Crossfit is a niche sport. At 8x the population with no training differences, you’d be looking at 8ish Sandows. Let’s say you could multiply that by 10 for training/nutrition differences (I’m being SO generous with that number). That’s 80 guys on the planet. And 30+ of them compete in the niche sport that is crossfit? Even ‘taken in isolation’, those numbers are absurd.
[/quote]
I think your numbers are off for a few reasons. I think you underestimate the influence of something as simple as protein powder (pure protein, with no calories from fat!), dietary techniques to get big and lean (IF, carb back loading, purposefully spiking insulin, etc), and injury prevention and recovery. Back then, if you tore an ACL you were a cripple for life. A few days ago, Brandon Lilly broke his knee cap in two and tore ligaments in both knees, and I have no doubt he’ll be back squatting again in a year.
Lastly, you’ve ignored the financial incentives to be big and strong. Sandow most likely wasn’t the biggest, strongest man in the world. He was a circus athlete, he travelled around the world amusing people. Nowadays we collectively throw billions and billions of dollars at people to be big and strong. You can’t underestimate the influence of a multimillion dollar contract on peoples ability to get big.
Incidentally, we’ll never be able to look at the history books for guidance, because PED usage and discovery grew in lockstep with the financial incentives to get big, strong, and fast.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Glassman is what a 10?[/quote]
Dude you know alot about this guy…did he scorn you?
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Glassman is what a 10?[/quote]
Dude you know alot about this guy…did he scorn you?[/quote]
Dude, two close friends of mine own crossfit gyms…and the inner circle of crossfit is full of lulz.
Why are you worried?