Steroids And CrossFit?

Posted on February 5, 2014 by Justin

There’s a fascinating article written by performance enhancement drugs (PEDs) gurus John Romano and Anthony Roberts titled, “Steroids, CrossFit, and The CrossFit Games: Who & How“. The TL;DR is a) these guys are experts on PEDs, b) drug tests are very easy to beat, c) testing agencies are mediocre at best, purposely negligent at worse, d) every major sport (including the Olympics) has steroid users, e) given some formulas (that are backed by research) that look at musculature on a man’s frame, CrossFit competitors fit the mold of steroid use. I suggest reading the article as it expands on each of these points significantly.

I’ve written various steroid articles in the past, but as much as I’ve studied anatomy, physiology (including endocrinology), I still don’t understand the mechanism of PEDs well. The most recent article I wrote on it is, “Lance Armstrong, PEDs, and Naivety” (a very good article to compliment Romano and Robert’s above). I’ve accepted this statement as fact: “Most athletes in high level sports are using PEDs. The ones who aren’t are probably losing or are the minority.” The Romano/Roberts article above even points to studies that show specific time periods of increased performance in a given sport and how it correlated precisely with a new PED on the market. To think of this as merely a correlation without causation is, as I say in my own article above, naive.

Why would CrossFit be any different? The winner of the CrossFit Games wins at least a quarter million dollars, and that doesn’t even include follow-up endorsement deals or CrossFitters throwing money at them to attend shitty seminars and “learn their secrets”. I’m not saying they bullshit their way into victory with PEDs, but pointing out that CrossFit fame has significant rewards. (I’m also saying that successful CrossFit competitors are typically bad coaches, but that’s neither here nor there).

My personal opinion of PED use is that it’s none of my fucking business. I believe that the swift movement towards social liberalism will lead to the legality of PED use in the same way that marijuana is legal in some states. This poses a variety of additional questions, like the government inevitably wanting to regulate them (they can’t and won’t), and how it could increase the overall safety of PED use among lay-people. (Remember that scene in Minority Report when Tom Cruise gets a back-alley-abortion-style eye surgery because it was illegal?)

To continue my opinion, if most athletes are using PEDs and the tests suck, then what’s the point? In case of alcohol addiction people refer IOP program NYC to get rid off it.But what do in this case ? To be in detail when I wrote the Lance Armstrong article above, my friend Eva Twardokens, a two-time winter Olympian, called me immediately expressing her displeasure. She has a disdain for cheaters in sport, and I completely understand the argument, especially from the perspective of a non-using competitor. Unfortunately for non-using competitors, the rest of everyone else will be using. And they’ll probably be the winners.

Eva at least made me think about my stance. She lambasted Armstrong while I called him a hero in the article (for other things in life like fundraising). I’ve seen my friends lose in national competitions to guys who were quite clearly using. But I also have friends who save lives or kill the enemy while use testable or non-testable PEDs to increase their performance at work. I see both sides, and I’m not sure I really care. What matters is the ability to connect and share experiences, much like how Digital Business Cards facilitate networking and relationship-building in various professions.

Fairness is an illusion anyway. Forget all of the tangible elements that make a person who they are and look at intangibles. For example, not everyone has the same will to succeed, so why treat them all like they do and make futile attempts at putting them on the same level? That question has more than one meaning.

The truth is…life ain’t fair. No matter what regulation you put on it, folks will not follow it. I’m not making a case for anarchy, no rules, and no government, but I’m making a case against the naive mindset that sport preparation is, or should be, fair. The internetz have talked for years about PED use in CrossFit. It’s likely some of those guys were or are using. And I don’t blame them.

Let’s go back to the Romano/Roberts article. I thought that the linked study was really neat. It basically looked at non-using bodybuilders from the pre-steroid era and compared them to PED-using bodybuilders in the early steroid era and applied a formula based on their lean body mass and height to gauge whether they were likely using steroids or not. (Something like this should be used instead of the bullshit BMI). It found that at least half of the top ten male finishers at the CrossFit Games would fit a classification of PED use. After all, the non-using bodybuilders from the linked study were the most muscular men in the world.

The FFMI formula for reference, taken directly from the Romano/Roberts article.

I thought this was interesting, so I plugged my own information into it. The cutoff, according to the study, was anything over a 25 was flagged for steroid use. They increased the cutoff to 26 for the sake of an argument that benefits the CrossFitters (read their article if you don’t know what I’m talking about). In any case, I estimated my body fat at a conservative 10% (it’s usually more like 9%) and used a 210 lbs (this is my lowest). So that puts me at 85.905kg for lean mass (note that I converted to kilos) and my height is 1.8288m (6 ft tall), and my value was 25.69. Without adjusting for a 1.8m man (which I am close to), and according to the study, I am flagged for potential PED use, and I have never used.

Aside from feeling really cool about having a comparable muscle-to-frame ratio as former Mr. Americas, I found this is interesting. I am much more conditioned than a normal lifter, but I am not nearly as conditioned or adapted to high volumes as the guys finishing in the CrossFit games. However, most of the top ten finishers from the CF Games have a higher value than I do (Jason Khalipa has a whopping 28.5).

Romano and Roberts did not directly suggest that these guys were using PEDs; their goal was to point out that the conditions exist where it is likely they are, whether you’re talking about widespread drug use in sports or the fact these guys fit the mold for PEDs users.

All I’m saying is that it’s naive to not make the assumption.

Soft Tissue Work Isn’t The Enemy

Posted on February 1, 2014 by Justin

It bothers me when people, even the educated ones, say that muscles are “just not firing”, as if there is a total lack of innervation in an otherwise healthy individual (i.e. no radiculopathy or motor unit issues). Sure, muscles can be rendered ineffective because of tightness or bad mechanics — and thus their inclusion in movement is impaired — but they aren’t “not firing”. Subsequently, you don’t “teach muscles to fire” in the absence of the pathology mentioned above. This was my first issue with the article “Your IT Band is Not the Enemy” by Robert Comacho.

There’s so much silly in-fighting in the strength and conditioning world I feel the need to preface this god damn article by saying I’m sure Robert is a nice guy, an effective coach, and I don’t think he’s a piece of shit. I’m just going to disagree with the point of his article and I’m sure he’s man enough to accept that. And if he’s not, then he’ll scream into his pillow.

I’m actually disappointed in this article since it said the foam roller may be the enemy, yet there wasn’t much evidence supporting the statement. There are a lot of things that can result in a tight iliotibial tract, or IT band, because there are quite a few structures that interact with it. The author is right in the roles of the TFL and the gluteus medius in how they attach to the IT band with their inferior (or lower) attachments and help stabilize the knee. The vastus lateralis (the outside quad) also has some IT interaction and can affect function in the area as well. Note that other muscles that don’t actually touch the IT band can exacerbate tightness or pain too. But describing articulations with the IT band is incomplete because movement and mechanics will dictate muscular function and therefore tightness and pain at the IT band.

Bad posture, movement, and lifting mechanics will influence what muscles are used, overused, or ineffectively used (though they will still fire, mind you). This is the stuff that will dictate whether or not muscles like the TFL, glute medius, or vastus lateralis are tight and whether or not the IT band incorrectly receives stress and loading. It leaves the scope of this article to detail a comprehensive look at mechanics that effect the IT band, but some mechanic faults include the navicular drop (collapsed foot arch), knees moving in on any movement including walking, running, squatting, etc., and having tight internal rotators at the hip and weak external rotators (for the IT band’s purposes, I’m referring to the posterior fibers of the glute medius). If none of that made any sense, it just means doing athletic stuff with shitty technique will cause IT band issues and that a coach should be fixing it.

But I want to focus on two ideas:
1. Soft tissue work is being demonized.
2. Readers are so quick to hear someone’s opinion and immediately accept it as gospel, stroke its dong, and revel in its post-coitus warmth.

The Demonization of Soft Tissue Work

Foam rollers increase range of motion and reduce pain. My IT bands are tight and my knees hurt. Therefore I should apply the roller to my IT bands to solve these problems, right? Unfortunately, more often than not the answer to this question is a resounding “no.” It’s quite possible you’re actually doing more harm than help and further stretching an already abused and over-elongated piece of tissue. (From Robert’s article)

Unfortunately, most people do roll on their IT band excessively to try to fix it. Robert is right to criticize this, but he makes it seem like there is no place for it and fails to acknowledge that good coaches will not prescribe this. In his defense, he does clarify that, “It wasn’t my intention to state that foam rolling/stretching have no place in this type of rehab, It was more to point out…that the solution may be a bit more complex. (From a reply of his in the comments).

Fair enough, but then why suggest in the title of the article that the foam roller is potentially the problem? That’s like saying guns are a problem instead of the psycho pieces of shit who wield them against innocent people. It may be Breaking Muscle’s fault (the website that published the article); I know that The CrossFit Journal gave my article a shitty title when they published it. A website or journal needs to sell, and unfortunately people are more likely to click something if it’s controversial or big boobs.

As much as people want to say foam rolling or using lacrosse balls is actually harmful, the practical evidence suggests otherwise. Should we just mash on shit when it hurts? No, sir. But well thought out and executed soft tissue work can not only improve a lot of issues, but they are necessary in the absence of a good physical therapist. If you — whether you’re a trainee or a coach — want to improve your knowledge about this, then get your nose in a book or a college class and learn musculoskeletal anatomy. Learn about biomechanics and how to optimally distribute force efficiently. Learn about trigger point therapy and different types of injuries. I wrote two articles (“Why Anatomy Is Important” and “Learning About Strength and Conditioning“) that include some resources about this material, but I’ve learned most of it by doing and thinking.

This article isn’t a guide on how to do soft tissue, but I want to defiantly stand against the notion that it’s the enemy. Stupid soft tissue work is the enemy, just like the stupid use of Valium and a heavy machinery is the enemy. Coaches and trainees who actually give a shit need to think, which leads me to my next point.

Use Your Fucking Noggin

Below is something I saw on Facebook.
A few things:

1. The post the person linked to is from “I Fucking Love Science”, which is a stupid fucking piece of shit Facebook page that is the epitome of irrelevant material and aims for self popularity instead of the dissemination of knowledge. Read Maddox’s entertaining article about it.

2. I really wanted to be way more of an asshole, but I actually have a pretty thick filter. The point: if there were a giant ligament in every person’s knee, don’t you think somebody would have noticed in the last 2,000 years?

3. People ate this steaming bullshit up and then asked for seconds and thirds. This is a problem.

Readers are so god damn quick to immediately and irrevocably believe whatever they are being told, regardless of the qualifications of the person writing it. It could be written by some goober who has never coached anyone or someone who has many degrees and athletes, but is borderline retarded.

As a consumer about training information, you need to be openly skeptical about everything you read or hear. Hearing something that makes you feel good or that you agree with doesn’t make it 100% true. If the coach who has been watching you squat for two years tells you to do something, they should have the ability and the proverbial balls to explain it to you, even if it’s merely a hunch or experiment.

When a guy like Robert writes an article that says your foam roller is the problem, don’t immediately say, “I FUCKING KNEW IT. THIS PROVES WHAT I’VE THOUGHT ALL ALONG.” Read what the dude is actually saying, question it, and see what info you can use. Discuss it. Think about it.

Foam rollers, rumble rollers, lacrosse balls, and Theracanes are not the enemy; our brains are. Let’s hold them accountable.

70’s Big Radio – Episode 17

Posted on January 25, 2014 by Justin

Topics include:

Intro Topics:
– Derek Kendall 800 lbs front squat
– Stephanie Renfro deadlifts 405×3
– “The Movement Fix” hip article critique

Q&A Topics:
– shakes at night!
– Lower back strengthener
– Best way to measure body fat
– Considerations when switching from low bar to high bar squat
– Pushing the deadlift on the Texas Method
– Flat vs heeled shoes for good mornings and RDLs
– Assymetrical shoulder — what do I do?
– Squat program for Olympic lifters
– Hypertrophy program good after finishing a linear progression?
– Press programming with the Texas Method
– Training while deployed…on a ship…with no squat racks.
– Deadlifting mechanics for a taller guyyy

Search “70′s Big” on iTunes or listen/download HERE. Subscribe with your RSS app HERE.

70’s Big Radio – Episode 16

Posted on January 17, 2014 by Justin

After a long break, we’re back at it again. This is largely a Q&A to knock the rust off.

Topics include:

– Powerlifting with Olympic lifting programming
– Upper back training
– Conditioning in 5/3/1
– Stretching vs. soft tissue work
– Shoulder mobility for snatch
– Does grunting increase strength?
– How many carbs? (Paleo for Lifters)
– Dropping a weight class for a meet
– GoRuck training
– Farmer’s walk in conditioning
– Back rehab
– Sprints for conditioning
– Rowing for conditioning
– Assistance exercises for the press

Search “70′s Big” on iTunes or listen/download HERE. Subscribe with your RSS app HERE.

Popular Feminist On Masculinity

Posted on January 2, 2014 by Justin

A 70’s Big reader named Darren posted an article, Camille Paglia: A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues, that I found very interesting. I had never heard of Camille Paglia before; she’s feminist that I agree with. Weird.

You might be wondering why the hell I’m posting about this considering this is a website dedicated to strength training. If you have followed this site for a while (or read through the extensive archive) you know that improving body image is a point of emphasis. From a male’s perspective I put an emphasis on being manly, muscular, capable, and brawny (see Be A God Damn Man). The emphasis on thin, hipster, goober-faced celebrities influences (stupid) young males into imitating them because (stupid) young females consider that style and body image to be attractive. I even started “revolutions” about short shorts, flannel, and tank tops for muscular readers to make a concerted effort into exhibiting manliness against the societal norm (women can have a similar revolutionary effect just by lifting weights).

From a female’s perspective, I want females to spit on the idea of emaciation and starvation and understand that a strong woman is attractive, appealing, and ideal (see What is sexy?). For over a year I posted a female topic every Monday to a) get women into strength training and b) facilitate their transition into a healthier body image (Peculiarities of Female Training is one of many examples).

The point is that 70’s Big has always been concerned with gender roles in society and in relation to each other. I feel that these are related to the direction that society and America have headed; there’s a resonating theme of pussification. I don’t mean that in a “I’m a crusty old man and think everyone is a pussy,” kind of way. I mean that people are unwilling to accept any personal responsibility and want to be coddled. Hard work and busting one’s ass is an after thought, especially since somebody else will end up taking care of you anyway.

Technology is amazing and I love it, but people allow themselves to be enslaved by it. Nobody really does anything and they are content with this fact; it’s easier to provide acute entertainment with some kind of pixelated screen. I’m not against watching TV, playing videogames, or surfing the internet, but I am against complacency. I believe that no person should ever plateau and that they should continuously work to be better. They should improve their intelligence, their emotional capability, their physical prowess, their health, and so on. I try to exhibit the thirst for knowledge and success through the content on this site. There’s an agenda here, and it’s focused on your individual improvement to help the general improvement (though the latter is a lofty and possibly naive goal).

Whether you realize it or not, your training and lifting means something. Are you experiencing an eternal struggle of personal growth and introspection? How will you respond in a moment in which all of the odds favor failure? Can you summon the courage and intensity to finish that pull or to stick the jerk? Or is your training a reminder that success comes with not only a price, but a slow, grinding process that leaves your sweat and blood behind you as you step towards your goal. Or is the end product what matters; that you stand at the top of the mountain and revile in the days, the hours, the minutes that it took for you to squat 405, or 500, or 600 and so on. Or is it a tool that improves your self confidence, letting you be more bold at work or with the opposite sex? Or is it something that effects your gender role and exhibits masculinity or a powerful woman?

It could be all of these things at once, and that’s why we train.

When I saw the originally linked interview with Camille Paglia talking about how masculinity is being stripped from American society as early as grade school, it makes me think of our place in the system. She says a lot of thought provoking things that defy conventional wisdom and “societal norms”, and I applaud her for it. I agree with her take on “‘equal-opportunity feminism’ that demands a level playing field without demanding special quotas or protections for women”. I agree with her assessment that a lack of masculinity has a massive trickle down effect that even influences corporate or governmental decisions.

A key part of the remedy, she believes, is a “revalorization” of traditional male trades—the ones that allow women’s studies professors to drive to work (roads), take the elevator to their office (construction), read in the library (electricity), and go to gender-neutral restrooms (plumbing).

The above is one of Paglia’s solution to dwindling masculinity. It’s a good idea, but one that, like most good ideas, will either not happen or will fall short. It’s an interesting thought in an interesting topic. Paglia is all over the place — the WSJ editor pointed out, “Talking to her is like a mental CrossFit workout” — but I was impressed with Paglia. Yet, after my nodding in agreement or standing ovations, I think back to wondering what we can actually do to help the problem or issue.

My only solution is to keep lifting weights; it solves most problems, right?