CrossFit Oakland

Great performance...Justin, that kip is right around the corner, props for hanging in!

Due to the high demand for weekend sessions we will be expanding our schedule. Sat & Sun classes will now be at 9AM AND 10AM.

Max,

FIrst of all great job on your site. I think that it is quite possibly the best affiliate site out there.

I read the article you posted about womens body image and food from the female rugby player and it reminded me of an article that I have bookmarked and have shared with several parents and friends.

This article is on Coach Gordo's triathlete training website. I know Gordo's training goes against the Crossfit ideal but I think that this is a great article and discussion for our community. Gordo is a former triathlete and a tri coach and this article is his notes on a seminar he attended on eating disorders in female athletes. My wife and I just sold 2 gymnastics studios and I have watched the female gymnasts mature and their sense of body image change as they age so I found this article very interesting.

http://www.coachgordo.com/gtips/nutrition_body_composition/disordered_eating.html

Once again great website and the next time I am in the Oakland area I will definitely drop by and visit the facility.

I am absolute believer in the Paleo diet and wish I could be in town for the seminar best of luck!

Derek,

That is high praise. Thank you very much. I read the article in full. I think (and hope) that a seismic shift is taking place in exercise, thanks
in large part to Coach Glassman. For example two major new releases, "RockyBalboa" and "Frank Miller's The 300" either use or feature crossfit as theirtraining modality. Interestingly the elite CrossFitters ("FrankenFitters")Gregg A, Josh T., Annie, Eva T., Nicole C., etc have a very healthy diet:it is simply impossible to be high level "CrossFit" without a healthy diet.

Triathletes, while held up as paragons of elite fitness are horribly biased towards long endurance work, and fail in most other athletic paramaters
besides stamina and balance. I have worked with triathletes and they are surprisingly underpowered, slow and weak for their fitness level and body composition.

I really believe that the first elite level triathlete who embraces CrossFit, changes to a zone/paleo diet and puts on 10 lbs of leg
musculature is going to pull away from the pack and change the whole game. I myself am
planning on competing in a triathlon sprint with only minimal training(working the transitions mostly) to see if I can come in the top 25% on
the strength of my "CrossFitness". Maybe in a year or so.

You may have noticed we are giving a seminar on food as fuel this coming Sunday: we are going to be using the same language as in the article you
attached.

Not all triathletes are slow and weak! =)

When you do your sprint tri, you will be surprised at how many buffed-out guys there are. It's certainly not 100%, but there will be a good number.

Also, while it would be fascinating to see what would happen if an elite triathlete took up CrossFit and got more leg mass, I am skeptical that it would improve performance. Generally for endurance sports, even a little extra weight usually hurts performance. For one data point, the world record ironman performance for clydesdales (men over 200lbs) is about 10 hours; for lighter athletes, it's about 8 hours. For a second data point, I have read in several places that adding a pound of weight adds about a minute to your marathon time. Mass is great for explosive power (in fact, I think one of the best time trial cyclists is almost 200 lbs), but it gets demolished in longer distance events, especially when gravity is pulling you down as you go up a hill.

As for the paleo diet, Joe Friel, who wrote an excellent book called the Triathlete's Training Bible (and it is!), is a strong advocate of that. I'm sure a number of triathletes are already implementing it.

Well, well, Leo you might have to be our very own FrankenFitter! I think putting 10 lbs of leg mass on you while removing 10 lbs of metabolically intert material will give you enormously improved power with no net displacement of body mass! I think I remember you are a vegetarian, so if we can work on increasing your protein intake that should increase your performance as wll. I have to introduce you to my friend "Fran".

As for the pound of weight paramater: I need to see data points for muscular body mass, not just weight before I buy that, but you might be right.

Who said vegetarians don't get enough protein? ;) I'm pretty sure I get about 100-125 grams/day.

I'll try to find some sources for the facts I quoted..

First off, great conversation, everyone. I'm excited that there are such great conversations going on around here these days.

Leo,

I find it interesting and instructive that your defense of triathletes actually bolsters the case for the broad and general fitness that CrossFit espouses and trains for.

You write that there are a number of muscular (buffed-out, as you put it) triathletes out there. Yet a few sentences later, you state that the lighter (less muscular, if I may be so bold) triathletes generally outperform the heavier ones (and support it with some data).

So we have two simple statements (sorry, my mind tends to parse things into their simplest logical components--too much mathematics as a youngster!):

1. There are a number of muscular triathletes out there.
2. Most elite triathletes are lighter in weight.

I'm having a tough time reconciling those two statements.

Could it be that becoming an elite triathlete requires one to become less fit, in the broadest sense of the word? Going one step further, could it be that using the training methods of an elite triathlete is antithetical to health and fitness?

By the way, it's my belief that many sports require a sacrifice in health and fitness to achieve elite status, so this is no attack on triathletes in particular. It's just that triathletes are so often held up as the exemplar par excellence of fitness, which is a bit wrong-headed in my opinion.

Leo said:

"Who said vegetarians don't get enough protein? ;)"

Hm, well I did not say it straight out, but, vegetarians don't get enough protien. Nothing will increase the performance of a vegetarian like not being a vegetarian.

PS - I'm a recovering vegetarian: was veggie for 10 years. What a mistake!

Mike and Max:
I am not disagreeing with either of you. From what I've read, it does seem that on average, CrossFit athletes are much fitter in a general sense than triathletes. Also, in general, vegetarians do have more difficulty getting enough protein than do nonvegetarians.

What I was getting at is that there are a sizable number of exceptions to each statement. Not .1%, but maybe 10% or even more. I don't think it's fair to dismiss either minority by saying triathletes sacrifice health and fitness to be elite or vegetarians don't get enough protein without acknowledging that a good minority doesn't conform to each statement.

Specifically, for the vegetarian statement, I could say that few things will improve the health of a nonvegetarian than going vegetarian (less cholesterol, fewer carcinogens, etc). I think that's probably true for a large class of people, but it's also not true for a large class for people. For the triathlete statement... actually, I think you really put it well when you say that to be elite you have to sacrifice health and fitness. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I don't think that makes triathletes unfit compared to the average person though - perhaps just compared to the average CFer.

Also, just wanted to mention that I hope neither of you thinks I'm trying to start a flame war =). I just like spirited debate. And the fact that I signed up for CrossFit instead of continuing my prior training schedule vouches that I think you guys are more on the right track than I was.

See you guys tomorrow!

Leo,

We love spirited debate, too. Keep it coming. This is the type of conversation that needs to happen with greater frequency.

Mike

Leo: vegetarianism is not healthy, We are carnivores and need meat for optimum health. The real culprits in modern disease are proccessed foods, not meat.

Here is a long excerpt from "The Naive Vegetarian":

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html#link14

But isn't vegetarianism healthier?

Many people become vegetarians because they believe that such a lifestyle is healthier, particularly in terms of heart disease and cancer. They believe that an intake of meat, and particularly animal fat, will shorten their lives. As evidence of this, a study of largely vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists is usually quoted (32) despite the fact that its authors conclude: ' We hope that no-one will take data from this report and use it to say "Food A lowers or food B raises mortality risk". ' It is certainly true that this religious sect suffers less from heart disease than the general population. However, the use of this argument to show that vegetarianism is healthier is flawed. A similar study of Mormons in Utah, who eat a considerable amount of meat, found similar low levels of the disease. In fact, the diet of both communities had little or no impact on their incidences of heart disease; the incidences of the disease is low because they are both close-knit and supportive communities, a situation which is known to be protective as far as such diseases are concerned (33) .

Comparisons of the health and longevity of cultures with different dietary habits confirms that meat eaters, such as Eskimos, Nagas and Maasai, can expect to live twice as long as primitive vegetarians. It may be said that such a comparison is flawed because the situations in which these peoples live is very different but there are cases throughout the world where meaningful comparisons can be made.

In Kenya two tribes, the Maasai and the Kikuyu, live in the same country, the same climate, the same political system and the same environment. The Maasai, when wholly carnivorous, drinking only the blood and milk of their cattle, were tall, healthy, long-lived and slim. The Kikuyu, when wholly vegetarian, were stunted, diseased, short-lived and pot-bellied. Over the last few decades, the Kikuyu have started to eat meat – and their health has improved. Since 1960 the Maasai diet has also changed, but in the opposite direction. They are now eating less blood, milk and meat, replacing it with maize and beans. Their health has deteriorated (34) .

A study by Drs. W. S. McClellan and E. F. Du Bois (35) found that the Eskimos in Baffin Island and Greenland living on a diet composed almost entirely of meat and fish, and eating no starchy or sugary foods, suffered few diseases. This was not the case with the Labrador Eskimos. They had been 'civilised' and lived on preserved foods, dried potatoes, flour, canned foods and cereals. Among them the diseases of civilisation were rife.

Dr. Sir Robert McCarrison (36) , working in India, similarly compared the northern tribes – Pathans, Sikhs and Hunzas – who ate meat and fresh vegetables, had fine physiques and were healthy and long-lived with the Plains peoples – Madrassis, Bengalis and Kanarese – who ate little meat or milk, living mainly on rice and who were overweight and unhealthy.

Other studies have purported to show that vegetarianism is healthier. In July 1994, the British press carried headlines like 'Vegetarian diet means longer life' as they reported a vegetarian study from the British Medical Journal (37) which said that vegetarians suffered forty percent fewer cancers and heart disease than meat eaters.

But the public were being misled – the study was badly flawed.

¨ The study's vegetarian cohort was selected through the Vegetarian Society and the meat-eaters were then selected by the vegetarians themselves. This is hardly the way to conduct an unbiased trial – if they want to prove a point, and what vegetarian doesn't, they will pick those who are most likely to be unhealthy. It is human nature.

¨ The vegetarians were mostly women, while the meat-eating group contained more men. Women live longer than men. In the age range of the subjects studied, men have four times the heart disease of women – enough to confound the figures significantly.

¨ The vegetarians were younger than the meat-eaters. As younger people have a lower death rate, one would expect more deaths among the meat-eaters regardless of dietary influences.

In this study, the two groups were not comparable and the study is worthless.

Vegetarianism and coronary disease

Other evidence refutes the 'vegetarianism is healthier' dogma. London has a high proportion of Asian immigrants. They live in the same environment as the indigenous population and mix freely with them. But the incidence of coronary artery disease is much higher in the Asian population. A study published in 1985 (38) was pretty conclusive evidence that the Asian's diet – high in linoleic acid and predominantly vegetarian – was not protective against the disease.

It is usually better to compare similar populations in the same area as, in the study above, the Asians have a different evolutionary background to northern European Caucasians. One study which did this, compares vegetarians and fresh fish eaters from two neighbouring Bantu villages. (39) This study found that the fish eaters had higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, lower blood pressure and lower blood fat levels than the vegetarians. Both blood pressure and lipids increased throughout life in vegetarians but remained fairly constant throughout life in the fish eaters.

The published literature on fruit and vegetables and cardiovascular disease is extensive. In 1997, Drs Ness and Powles reviewed some ten ecological studies, three case-control studies, and sixteen cohort studies reporting measures of association between intake of fruit and vegetables (or intake of nutrients mainly obtained from fruit and vegetables) and coronary heart disease, together with five ecological studies, one case-control study, and eight cohort studies for stroke. (40) They point out that cohorts at 'low risk' have failed to show a protective association between intake of fruit and vegetables and cardiovascular disease (for example, a study of 26 473 Seventh Day Adventists followed up for six years, frequently quoted in support of a vegetarian lifestyle being 'healthy', showed null findings for fruit, and that many uncertainties remain concerning the relations between consumption of fruit and vegetables and the risk of cardiovascular disease.

The best evidence, surely, is obtained from looking at actual people who have a proven long life. In 1992 scientists at the Department of Community Health, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology, Japan, published a paper which examined the relationship of nutritional status to further life expectancy and health status in the Japanese elderly (41) . It was based on three epidemiological studies.

¨ In the first, nutrient intakes in ninety-four Japanese centenarians investigated between 1972 and 1973 showed a higher proportion of animal protein to total proteins than in contemporary average Japanese.

¨ The second demonstrated that high intakes of milk and fats and oils had favourable effects on ten-year survivorship in 422 urban residents aged sixty-nine to seventy-one. The survivors revealed a longitudinal increase in intakes of animal foods such as eggs, milk, fish and meat over the ten years.

¨ In the third study, nutrient intakes were compared between a sample from Okinawa Prefecture where life expectancies at birth and sixty-five were the longest in Japan, and a sample from Akita Prefecture where the life expectancies were much shorter. It found that the proportion of energy from animalproteins and fats were significantly higher in the former than in the latter.

Dare I say it? Perhaps the longevity issue had less to due with one's level of meat consumption and more to do with one's time spent emotionally engaging in competitive environments. :) Native American cultures are cooperation identified, not competition identified. I'd hazard a guess that the same can be said of Seventh Day Adventists as well.

Because I don't think that I was quite understood from a couple of days ago I'll re-state.... it's not competition, per se that I don't enjoy, it's competitive environments. I also don't eat red meat or poultry. But I love crossfit, so I guess that makes me an anomoly.

However, it is worth it to say that we all ended up here in the same space....Max from a non-sporting, non-meat eating youth, me from a youth filled with competitive sports and food hunted by my family (that would be meat...lots of it). To each her own approach. :)

I guess we are both rebels.

Max:

I read/skimmed the whole article. It was definitely interesting, and there are many placed where I agreed, as well as some where I disagreed. While I can nitpick pieces of the article, I doubt that would be constructive. Basically, my opinion is this:

What the diet question boils down to is: if you looked at what I ate for several days, would you be able to find places where I would be better off replacing various parts of my meal with meat. Perhaps I'm being overconfident, but I believe the answer is 'no'. I know what my micro- and macro-nutrient requirements are, and I believe I get everything I need from my diet. Could I get everything from a non-vegetarian diet? Probably. However, I have found the "mostly vegan" thing makes my meal planning a lot simpler. Skipping desserts is easier because now I have two reasons to avoid them (they're unhealthy and not vegan) instead of just one; getting enough veggies and legumes is easier because I need to to eat more to consume enough calories and to feel full; my diet, while not always perfect, is rarely severely flawed (gorging on zucchini is okay; gorging on meat or cheese is not). In the end, I get everything I need from veganism/vegetarianism, and while adding a little bit of meat might not make my diet worse, I doubt it would make it significantly better. And that's the crucial thing for me: I don't need to know that the vegan diet is, *in general*, better or worse than the omnivore diet (although after some researh, I do lean toward thinking it's better); all I need to know is that if I try to stay vegan, then I eat healthier than if I don't, and that my diet has no glaring gaps.

As far as vegetarianism being unhealthy, here's a quote from The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada:
"well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence."

"Well-planned" is probably the key in that sentence, but the source makes it fairly credible, in my opinion.

Finally, I want to mention two things:
1) There are some good books on the vegetarian diet, its benefits, and its risks. I think it's sort of unfortunate that aggressive promotion of vegetarianism has made it a polarizing topic, but just like the Naive Vegetarian article references a lot of anti-vegetarian facts, books like Becoming Vegan reference a lot of pro-vegan ones
2) Evolution doesn't always produce optimal results - it only approaches optimal results given existing conditions. A classic example is the human eye, which is way less efficient than the eye of a squid. While it would be great for evolution to have "fixed" this issue, once it got started in one direction, there was no way to turn back. Analogously, I don't disagree that eating the sorts of foods cavemen ate is a good idea, but I don't think that precludes a diet consisting of different foods from being healthy.

Man, this is getting too long =P