CFWUx1
12(78) 24(156) 33(198) = 432

Completed workout as written

166 reps (finished 19 squats in the round of 7 pull-ups, with some banded pull-ups and knee push-ups as form suffered)

CFWUx1 12(78) 24(156) 33(198) = 432

Starting point: 1-2-3
Finishing point: 3 reps into 10-20-30
Total = 273 reps Rx

New years New crossfitter. 

Started at 1,2,3 
Finished at 9, didnt make the press ups on this row. 

Lots of work to do

Great simple summary of the issues with Keys' studies.  This should be a must read for any nutritionist, physician  and trainer.  Thank you.  

Great workout!

7 rnds & 2 push ups

Starting point: 1,2,3
Finishing point: 6,12,18
Total Reps: 126

33 years old, 1st time crossfit, long time trainning guy but not in great shape now...

i did :

start:   1pull-up, 2push-up, 3squat
finish:  9pull-up, 18push-up, 27squats
total:    270 reps

that was a good trainning, i did an other WOT after this one
some thruster and run.

I think i will like crossfit and it will put me back in good shape quickly.

test

Start: 1/2/3 Finish: 7/14/21 + 3 Pull ups Total: 172

Starting : 1,2,3
Finishing : 9,18,27
Total : 225
Sub pull ups for 55 lb lat pull down

1,2,3.... 8,16,15
~mcdontron

Started on 3-6-9, ended at 4 strict pull ups in 10th round

256 reps rx'd

Started with 1,2,3. Total reps 138.

Started at 1-2-3
I did banded pulldowns for strict pullups. Shoulder was hurting.
Got through the round of nine plus 41 reps for a total of 311 reps.

9 rounds completed plus 22

Started 1-2-3
Rx 335reps 5 pull-ups into round 11

Start 1.2.3. End 6.12.18. +7 pull, 14 push, 3 squat.
126+24
I continued for the full 12 minutes and added a further 114 reps (5R+6r) so 264 in total.

Rx 10 pull ups + 16 push ups

Rxd: made it to 9 pull-ups plus 18 pushups plus 9 squats or 252 reps. Unbroken strict underhand pull-ups through the 8’s. Unbroken pushups through 12’s 

1-2-3  -> 7-14-21 + 18reps
Horizontal bar pull ups

rx 1-2-3 -> 10-20-30 + 4 pu

rx round 11 ended with 27 squats:
11 pullups 22 pushups 27 squats
total 360 reps

Started 1,2,3.  Finished 8 pullups.  Elbow tendinitis killed me on PUs.

Start: 1-2-3
Finish: 9-4-0
Total: 229reps

1,2,3
9,18,27
Total reps: 246 Rx 

Perhaps Keys greatest fraud was that he was a lead investigator of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE) which found that replacing saturated fat with Omega-6 fatty acids did reduce cholesterol. However, the more that the cholesterol fell, the greater the morality rate.

This trial ran from 1968 - 73.

It was not published at the time... because?

The data was discovered, analysed, and published in the BMJ in 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27071971

The only conclusion that can be drawn about this dismal scientific episode is that Keys buried the results because they absolutely contradicted the diet-heart hypothesis and demonstrated that vegetable fatty acids (at least Omega-6 fatty acids) are damaging to human health.

Started from 123; 373 reps total (10+43)

rx 10r + 11+22

273 reps

1-2-3
7-14-21
168

1-2-3
7-14-21
168

7-14-21 plus 5 reps

220 reps 

Finished on the 10s round with 10 pull ups done Rx

Start: 1-2-3
Finished: 8-16-24
Total reps: 216

Started at 2 made to 8 pull-ups 14 push-ups

9 rounds + 10 pull-ups + 20 push-ups + 10 squats

Started at 1,2,3 ended at 8,16,24 with 216 total reps.

11-22-6

6rds completed, 7 pullups, 14 pushups and 15 squats

This is a good exposition on Ancel Keys' observational "Seven countries" study as a basis for his diet heart hypothesis - that Fat and in particular Saturated fat is causal for Cardiovascular disease.  What it misses is that Keys also determined to test his hypothesis in the Minnesota coronary experiment.

The MCE was a double blinded controlled clinical trial in 6 Minnesota mental hospitals.  Replacing butter with corn oil lowered cholesterol as predicted and raised incidence of CVD.  And then the results were buried because they were “disappointing”.   

Ancel Keys knew in 1989 that he was not only not correct, he was also precisely wrong.
The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute funded that study.  It's worth speculating how much expensive bad advice they continued to give in the  27 years from the study's conclusion in 1989, until the exposition of the study's actual results by Chris Ramsden in 2016 

https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246

Started 1-2-3
Completed 8-16-24 + 9

Finish 10 rounds + 5 pull ups on the 11 

Started 1-2-3
Finished 10 rounds plus 10 pull ups

At the Symposium on Atherosclerosis in March of 1955, Keys presented his paper entitled "The Relationship of the Diet to the Development of Atherosclerosis in Man." Two conclusions that deserved more attention from the scientific and medical community  were:

1." ...there is no evidence that dietary cholesterol, other things being equal, has any influence on atherosclerosis in man."

2. "The effects of different food fats in man have been inadequately studied."

“Whether or not there truly was, or is, a correlation between fat intake and heart disease in the countries Keys surveyed, the data was insufficient to clearly show fat intake was the primary factor affecting heart-disease risk. Unfortunately, these biased data and the ways they were interpreted by Keys and others helped cement the belief that dietary fat causes heart attacks, and so the diet-heart hypothesis.” — YES!!!!! Loved this section of your review, well said. 

I felt like the majority of this review was based on the fact that Keys cherry picked 6 countries to include in his iconic graph versus all 22 that were researched in the study. While a less compelling correlation, there is still a correlation between fat intake and heart deaths with all 22 countries considered. I think the even more viable argument here has to do with how our food system has changed because of Keys’ work. I think one of the most harmful things that has come from Keys’ studies was what the food industry/large health organizations did with this information and how they utilized it to sell more processed foods. In 1961, Ancel Keys landed a position on the nutrition committee for the American Heart Association. That same year, the AHA advised Americans to replace the saturated fats in their diets with polyunsaturated fats. This prompted Americans to start utilizing PUFAs found in highly processed hydrogenated oils (i.e. corn, canola, soybean, etc.) instead of animal fats such as butter. Around the same time that Keys made his argument against saturated fat, British physiologist, John Yudkin argued that sugar is more closely related to coronary heart disease incidence and mortality. Both Keys and Yudkin could find some support in their theory, but this could be because people eat foods, not isolated constituents of food (Dinicolantonio, Lucan, O’Keefe 2016). Slightly off topic but it’s also interesting to note that the first statin hit the market in 1987–likely insinuating that Keys’ recommendations for reducing cholesterol may have worked out differently than planned.

[I’d be curious to plot the timeline of sales for “low-fat” items and PUFAs to the release of Keys’ studies and his time on the AHA board.]

The study by Yerushalmy and Hilleboe is referenced often in response to Keys’ study, however, Yerushalmy and Hilleboe did find that animal protein correlated with coronary heart-disease mortality. Crossfit is known to promote a “paleo” style diet which can be meat heavy (especially in the eyes of the public). Not a bad thing, I just think it’s a slightly missed opportunity to draw on that fact that the paleo diet can be veg heavy with high-quality meats acting more like a side dish than a center of the plate item. 

Maybe what Ancel Key’s was missing was less about the lack of correlation and more about what other aspects of the participants diet could have been influencing their rate of mortality. What types of saturated fats were they eating? Were their diets full of processed foods? How much added sugar were they consuming? What happens when saturated fats are replaced with refined carbohydrates and added sugars?

In some ways, I do consider Keys’ work somewhat ‘landmark’–albeit, maybe not in the most positive light. However, it was one of the first studies to show us a correlation between diet and overall health/mortality. It is my assumption that this sparked Americans to actually consider their food choices in relation to their health. I’m looking forward to seeing more from CrossfitHealth! 


Dinicolantonio, J. J., Lucan, S. C., & O’Keefe, J. H. (2016). The Evidence for Saturated Fat and for Sugar Related to Coronary Heart Disease. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases,58(5), 464-472. doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2015.11.006

Started: 1-2-3
Finished: 10-20-28
Total reps: 328

Starting point: 1,2,3
Finishing point: 11,22,33
Total reps: 356

220
1/2/3 - 8/16/24 + 4 pull-ups

M59/6’2”/230

9 T2B-18 PU-F

M/44/6’5/243

57 / 172 -- started at 1. Completed 10 rounds plus 11 pull-ups and 18 pushups. 359 reps total.

M/56/6’2”/178
Start @1,2,3
Finish 9,18,27 +4 PU

Through 8, 16, 24
mas/62/145

48 reps
Started 1/2/3
Ended 4/8

didn't remember strict pull-ups, so did kipping by default

9 1/3 rounds + 15 push-ups

9 + 17 Rx 

11,22,33 + 2 pull-ups = 358

10rds + 11

Started at 1 pull up etc 
Finished at 7 push ups on 7th round 
Had to do L lipping pull ups round 6 and 7

Started at 1 and got to 10 pull-ups and hit time. Finished out the 20 push-ups and 30 squats after 

No better way to start the new year than with the new beautiful site revamp! I love how it brings the simplicity of 2007 mainsite back. That's when I started CrossFit and it's got me all nostalgic! 

Got through 7 rounds of pull-ups
29/m/5’11”/181

RX - 333 total reps. Started at 1-2-3, ended at 10-20-30 + 3 Pull-ups.

started at 1, 9 rounds + 4 pull ups

Started on 5s and got 4 into the round of 12s. 

Total 335

173 rep rx
5 pull-ups from 8/16/24 round

Male/35/165lbs. Finished the round of 10-20-30, got 1 pull-up in the round of 11. 

Rx’d
Started with 5-10-15
Ended after 12-24-36 plus three pull-ups for 411 total reps

Start 1-2-3 End 8-16-24 plus 9 Pull Ups + 8 push ups. Great WOD to start 2019

Start 1,2,3
263

Start 1,2,3
263

Complete as many reps as possible in 12 minutes of:

1 strict pull-up, 2 push-ups, 3 squats
2 strict pull-ups, 4 push-ups, 6 squats
3 strict pull-ups, 6 push-ups, 9 squats
.
.
.
.
9 strict pull-ups, 18 push-ups, 27 squats

186

Rd of 10 + 7 pull-ups
Fun!

According to Merriam-Webster science is ”The state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”
Also “A system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws.”
Regardless of how you choose to define science, it’s arguably NOT a static concept. We don’t say, “yeah that was science, we did that science thing once, let’s move on.” Science is never done. Knowledge evolves. 

So in his case, what the hell happened to the rest of the scientific method, those important principles just beyond generating a hypothesis and testing it? I think it’s important to say that again: testing it. We (should) know that can mean the results require you to refine your hypothesis or worse yet, set your ego aside for a moment, to perhaps reject it and start over. 
I don’t think anywhere it says the converse:  refine or reject the data to fit your hypothesis. This sounds laughable but exactly this has been going on with selectively publishing studies that support the hypothesis.

What we have to remain aware that a cognitive assumption we make about an observation in the world influences our interpretation of the “data”. No big deal right, probably human nature, but that’s where the critical analysis part of the scientific method should really be used. Nowhere that I recall does the scientific method indicate the point at which you stop evaluating new knowledge and write your hypothesis into law. 

So thank you CrossFit for picking up the misplaced principles of scientific methodology, to continue the search for truth.

8 rounds

kipping pull-ups
finished through 9 pull-ups
Total reps: 225

Masters +40.  
Started 5-10-15 finish 12 Strict pull-ups-24 push ups. Total reps 372. Happy new Year 

M/38/5’10”/170
Start 1,2,3. Finish 10,20,30.
Total reps: 330

9-18-27 green band assisted pull-ups, many push-ups from knees.  

inicio 1/2/3 finalice en 9/18/27 + 4 pull ups. total 274 reps Rx'd 

rx 1-2-3 ---> 9-18-27, plus 10 plus 9
289 reps total

Finished round of 8 + 24 squats. Fun one!

Start 1-2-3, ended on 10-20-30, 273 reps total

419 reps from 5-10-15

M/42/5'4"/150lbs
Made is to 10/20/30

Started 7/14/21 did 5rds then 6/12/18 did 4rds then 5/10/15 did 3 rds +1pull up
Total 445reps

170 reps rx, as written. First wod after 10 days of xmas flu :(

Started 1-2-3, finished 6-12-18 + 7 pull-ups+14 push-ups+17 sqats
164 reps

Started at 3-6-9 and completed 317 total reps.  Should have started with 1-2-3 because I was breaking up the pull ups too early.  

The sugar industry funded Keys’ collegiate laboratory for decades. It's no wonder he conveniently omitted data that would have disapproved his theory that dietary fat caused heart disease and that sugar had no role in metabolic derangement. Then he made the cover of Time magazine in 1961, the same year the American Heart Association Report advised Americans to “reduce intake of total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. Increase intake of polyunsaturated fat.”

The sugar industry funded Keys’ collegiate laboratory for decades. It's no wonder he conveniently omitted data that would have disapproved his theory that dietary fat caused heart disease and that sugar had no role in metabolic derangement. 

Then he made the cover of Time magazine in 1961, the same year the American Heart Association Report advised Americans to “reduce intake of total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. Increase intake of polyunsaturated fat.”

Starting 1-2-3
Finishing 9-18-27
Score : 180

1-2-3 to 10-20=28 (328) M/56/5'11"/200 

Start 1,2,3 -> End 7,14,21

Completed 2018-01-02
Finished 6-12-18 round plus reps
143 reps total

As a cardiologist, I find the discussion on nutrition with patients increasingly difficult.  The "textbook" teaching and continued publications from major societies about dietary fat and heart disease continues to be problematic.  Several recent reviews (with several co-authors who promote vegan lifestyle) continue to found their recommendations on these same poorly constructed theories:
http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/72/5/553?_ga=2.232384543.1629677811.1546450600-1228228555.1461246114
http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/72/5/553?_ga=2.232384543.1629677811.1546450600-1228228555.1461246114
http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/69/9/1172?_ga=2.138985651.1629677811.1546450600-1228228555.1461246114

9rds + 7 pull ups 

start 1 2 3 end with 9 18 & 9 continued to 10 20 30 under 15m

I got through, 10 full rounds plus 6 pull ups. 
326 according to my math.
M/34/6'3"/225

Rx’d
Starting point: 5-10-15
Total: 346
10 Strict Pull-ups into the round of (12-24-36)

Rx’d
Starting point: 5-10-15
Total: 346
10 Strict Pull-ups into the round of (12-24-36)

Rx’d 
Started 1-2-3
Finished 11-22-33
396 total reps

Dr. Eades' mention of Keys' "cudgel" is apt. Despite the fact that Keys' science was flawed, he had no qualms about attacking others with aggression. It's somewhat entertaining to see that he even tried to rely on criticisms of methodology and evidence when his own work was so poor.

In the Journal article "Devil in the Diet" by Andrí©a Maria Cecil, she presented this Keys quote from the 1971 paper "Sucrose in the Diet and Coronary Heart Disease":

“It is clear that Yudkin has no theoretical basis or experimental evidence to support his claim for a major influence of dietary sucrose in the etiology of (coronary heart disease); his claim that men who have CHD are excessive sugar eaters is nowhere confirmed but is disproved by many studies superior in methodology and/or magnitude to his own; and his ‘evidence’ from population statistics and time trends will not bear up under the most elementary critical examination. But the propaganda keeps on reverberating.”

In light of the basic but disastrous flaws in the Seven Countries Study, Keys was bold to sarcastically punctuate the word "evidence" when related to Yudkin's work.

For more on Yudkin, Keys and the consequences of the diet-heart hypothesis, read Cecil's article here: https://journal.crossfit.com/article/devil-in-the-diet-2

335 total reps.

Started at 1/2/3

Got through 10/30/30 + 5 pull-ups Rx

171 resp (7 rounds + 3) using Metolius Rock Rings

334 rx'd (4/11 Pull up)

8-16-24 plus 8 pull-ups 

332 rx
1-2-3

Started 1-2-3
Completed round of 12-24-36 + 13 pull-ups and 3 pushups 

F/31/5’0”126 Rx’d
starting point: 1-2-3
finishing point: 11-22-33 + 4 reps
total reps: 340 reps

1-2-3 finish 10-20-30 

Rx
...
10Strict pulls  20 Push ups  30 Squats
7/11 Strict pulls

Start point: 1-2-3; finish: 7-14-21

10 rounds plus 11 pull-ups 

Completed 9 reds plus 10 pull ups. 

D
Completed 7 rounds with band and knees 

204 reps. Band assisted pull-ups, push-ups from knees d/t back and shoulder injuries

Started with 15 minutes max interval on the bowflex m5 then 10-20-30 plus 11 strict pull ups for a total of 366? Reps. Gonna sleep well tonight!

175
Made it to the first 7 pull ups of the 8-16-24 set.
* I scaled by performing banded pull downs 2 for 1 (to report my score I only counted 1 rep)

177
Strict pull-ups, push-ups, lunges.
Completed 7rds + 9

Start 1-2-3.  Finished thru 11-22-33.  And +4 on Pull Ups.  400 reps RX.  Happy New Year!

Started at 1-2-3, ended at the round that starts with 9 pull-ups and managed to complete 8 pull-ups before the buzzer - 224

Let us press on and show the truth to the people.   Let us also not reproduce their folly in our fervor.....

Finished the 10 pull-up round

Started 1,2,3
Finished 9 rounds + 34 rx

Started 1, 2, 3...finished 7, 14, 21

Did you discontinue scaling the WODs?

Start - 1,2,3
Finish - 7, 14, 21
127reps 
Tough coming back to this after a long Christmas break. 

Start 1/2/3
Finish 12/24/23
Happy New Year

Started 1-2-3. 200 reps

:) 

Started at 1-2-3
Finished at 11-22-24

66 Strict Pull-ups
116 Push-ups
189 Squats
Total - 371

Started round 10

Started 1-2-3 ended at 10 pull-10pushups

Starting 1-2-3... 252 reps. first workout back in about a week of holidays. Great workout

started with 1,2,3 and ended with 9,18,27 plus 4 pullups

1 to 9R + 4
274reps

224 reps start at 1-2-3

295 Reps.  Started at 1-2-3.

Start: 1/2/3, Finish: 8/16/24, Total Reps: 194

Had that deja by feeling from the last big .com update “Wait, am I on the right site??”  Hehe

AMRAP in 12 min, starting with & scaled to 
1 ring rows, 2 knee pushups, 3 squats
through 
8 ring rows, 16 knee pushups, 24 squats + 9 reps 

Happy new year, suspects!!  🥳

Starting Point: 1, 2, 3 Finishing Point: 5, 10, 15 Total Reps: 92

Only went for 6 min of work.
58. Chubby. Out of shape. Knee/Elbow issues.

Starting point: 1-2-3
Finished: 9-18-27 + 5 pull-ups 
Total reps: 275

Started 1-2-3 finished 7-14-21. First WOD used my suspension trainer for extra work.

1-9 + 6 pull ups

338 rx
Made it through 10-20-30 and got 8 pull ups in next round 

Great look on the website.  I really like the new direction Crossfit is taking.  Keep up the great work.  

A lot of accusations have been leveled at Keys and SCS, some of them justified, some unjustified. To follow the point Eades makes above, a lot of the issues with both his 1953 analysis and with Seven Countries (SCS) are secondary to the issues in their interpretation. Putting accusations of cherry-picking (both within the sampled population and the presented outcomes) aside, Keys DID show a correlation between fat consumption (or saturated fat consumption in SCS) and heart disease mortality, and while there may have been other evidence to put this correlation on shakier ground at the time, it was not entirely without merit. The larger problems stemmed from the conviction with which these results were pushed into the public health space.
At best, SCS (and Keys’ observations prior to SCS) were observational, and so it was impossible to show any element of the diet CAUSED heart disease (incidence or mortality) based on that data. At worst, they were observational data that attempted to identify a single causal variable by comparing populations that differed in many ways. As many others have discussed, fat intake during this period was a proxy for a country’s level of economic development (which contains a mess of other confounders), and yet the fact that fat intake may have simply been tracking a lurking variable quickly disappeared as Keys and others began using observational (and later, weak trial) data to point the finger at fat specifically.  Both scientists and public health officials made the jump from the HYPOTHESIS that fat (or saturated fat) caused heart disease to the CONCLUSION that fat/SFA caused heart disease. This jump unfortunately pushed resources toward this unproven hypothesis and simultaneously crowded out other hypotheses that may have, at the time, been supported by equally strong evidence. 
If any damning accusation can be leveled at Keys and his colleagues, it may be this - that whatever Keys wrote in his papers (which, as Taubes noted above, often respected the limits of observational research), the shift in the way Americans thought about heart disease after Keys’s work reflects suggestive evidence being treated as conclusive.
We need not assume Keys was malicious, incompetent or self-serving to see his work had a degree of influence on subsequent scientific thinking and policy beyond what a strict interpretation of the data would support.

349Rx
Thought 12 min would seem longer with strict muscle fatigue movements but it came up quick. Go a little faster than you think 

This 1958 study depicts CrossFit Health's fight against Big Soda well past the obvious macronutrient debate.  In 1957 British scientist Dr. John Yudkin studied cardiac disease causation and concluded that sugar was the culprit.  Science was not the metric for success here, but well funded campaigns to falsely brand your counterpart, and accuse them of the very malfeasance you are committing.  As CrossFit continues to expose the Big Soda backing of our national research centers, national activity guidelines, and exercise is medicine prescriptions,  we uncover the truth that Dr. Keys tried to destroy.  Dr. Keys claimed that Dr. Yudkin was in bed with the meat and dairy industry, all the while the sugar industry has funded the direction of medical research in cardiac disease since President Eisenhower had his heart attack.   Exposing the truth of bad science and filling the void with elegant solutions in nutrition and fitness is the heart of CrossFit, excited to see where 2019 takes us!

Starting point 1,2,3...ended 8, 14, 0. Total reps, pullups,at 36, push ups at 70 and squats at 84...total of 190. Pull ups kill me! Also got in a beautiful 25 miles bike ride this am. Happy New Year!

337 reps

10 rounds + 6 strict pull ups

224 rx’d 

Completed rds 1-2-3 thru 10-20-30 = 55+110+165 = 330 total reps

10 rounds + 5 pull ups. Started at “1”.

Nice WOD. RX’d 230reps
Started 1-2-3

Grey band for pullups. 
Started 1 2 3
Ended 7 14 (4)
Total reps: 151

The damage done by this study and the near global acceptance of the lipid-heart hypothesis has caused death and disease on such a massive scale that it's difficult to truly comprehend.

I grew up with the food pyramid and it's 8-11 servings of grains suggested daily as the base.  This recommendation alone is likely responsible for millions of people being sicker and dying, and an expenditure on health care which can probably be counted with 9 or 10 digits.  While it's great to see a real shift begin in what seems to be a far better direction with understanding of what is at the core of metabolic syndrome and heart disease, the fact that there is no accountability for this fraud in abhorrent.  

Total reps 237. Started at 1 finished at 12 and 3 pull ups. 

299 reps. Started at 1-2-3. Happy New Year suspects.

1,2,3 to 11,8,0. 349 total reps. I had to continually look at the board to see what each round would be, and I had Pukie looking over my back the entire time. So that helped. Site looks great.

I got to 9 strict pull ups

Crossfit deserves credit for publishing this short analysis of how Ancel Keys went wrong, and it's instructive to hear from Mr. Taubes, with whom I agree.  And Sean Rockett, that's why we did Journal Club in our Surgical ICU each Friday when you were an intern, and still do, to understand the Scientific Method and scientific principles. Most especially to understand that correlation is NOT causation. With Methodolgy in mind, I would strongly encourage CrossfitHealth and Crossfit leadership and members to adhere to the same principles. Which is why it's a disservice to patients to tout things like an unproven Ketogenic diet to cure or reverse cancer in the absence of Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials in humans with cancer, as just one example.  I think Crossfit is an excellent fitness platform; now that it has ventured into Health, I look forward to it using the same high principles of interpretation of data and  humble drawing of conclusions for which it criticizes others.  Stanley Nasraway, MD, FCCM; CFL1, CF enthusiast, Professor of Surgery, Medicine, Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine. Tufts, Boston.

starting with 1, 2 and 3.  10 Rds plus 6 pull ups.  338 total Reps

Done as 1,2,3
21 squats in the round of 9! Great quick workout!

Started at 1,2,3...ended at 10 rounds + 19 push-ups for 360 total reps.  Here's to a new year of high intensity and many PRs.  Happy New Year to all.

56/5'8"/160

Should be 9

Me too!

1,2,3 through 10,14,0. Strict pull-ups got me good compared to kipping Cindy.

M/49/175
As rx’d 
start at 1,2,3 end at 11,22,33 + 1 pu
397 reps

Continued to 20 minutes 
13,26,42+1 pu
545 total reps

As rx'd, got through round of 9-18-27, plus 8 pull-ups in next round (278 total reps).

Strict pull-ups really slowed me down in later rounds.

Happy New Year!

45m/5'10"/180

8+7

Started at 1-2-3
Ended 15 squats in the round of 10-20-30 RX

Started 1,2,3 finished 10-20-30
Love the strict pull up programming 
330 total reps 
Male, 5,9” 44 yrs 160lbs 

6 rounds plus 3 pull ups

Good post on Keys. I would love to see this same amount of scrutiny applied to the claims CrossFit makes.

Start:3-6-9
End:8-16-24 +2
200 total RX

New site is interesting, wish we would have had a bit of a warning as your customers.  
Agree with the previous commenter in that I hope the scaling and comparison links come back. 

8 rounds +2

Do this exciting WOD 1,2,3 to 10,20,30 total reps 330

331 Reps Rx
Started 1,2,3 ended 10,20,30 + 1 pull-up 

Happy New Year All! 

Oh age 44 and did workout RX

Started at beginning total reps 285 ...did this workout after our regular JH CrossFit wod which was 20-19-18....1 double unders and air squats lol lots of squats today!

RX
Started 1/2/3
Finished 8/16/24 +7
218 reps 

RX
Started 1/2/3
Finished 8/16/24 +7
218 reps 

M/41/6’3”/215

Thru round of 10/20/30+7 pull-ups. I think that’s 337 reps. Fun time!

212 reps. Starting point: 5-10-15 finished 9-18-27 and got 8 pull-ups misjudgment 

Rx pull ups the limiting factor for me. Started at 1,2,3 ended at 6 of 7 pull ups 
27 strict pull ups, 42 push ups, 63 squats=132 total reps last 2 minutes arms gave out on pull ups... great wod to strengthen my weaknesses 

Started 1/2/3
Completed 8/18/27
Plus 3 strict pull ups
m/48/175
Happy New Year Suspects
Thanks HQ--Keep up the good work.

216 reps total
8 round + 9 pull ups. 
Supination. 
Happy new year !

Ancel Keys study exemplifies what is wrong in science and medicine, and why we are facing the greatest epidemic of chronic disease. 

It is almost unimaginable that a study which deviated from any possible scientific method could become the basis by which we practice medicine. Keys cherry picked countries to support a preconceived hypothesis. This false claim become a “fact”, and this unsupported and biased “diet-heart” claim became the authority for nutrition and public health. 

As a physician, I don’t remember ever being taught why we thought cholesterol was considered unhealthy, and why low-fat was beneficial for patients. I just remember being taught that. It was as if these recommendations were facts. While in reality they were false claims based on a bad study. (And the mishaps after). If I had been presented the graphs with the 22 countries, I seriously doubt I would have taken the recommendations as a fact. Instead, we are presented with what to tell patients, and reinforced this through training and then as national medical recommendations for the standard of care practice. 

This is why we need to uncover these lies. So we can understand how we got to where we are (in a big mess), and what the truth really is. 

starting point: 1, 2, 3; finishing point: 9, 18, finished press up last rounf at 12:30: deducting 8 reps for total rep count of 217. Mild December outside at 8degrees centrigrade.

10 rounds + 11 pull-ups + 10 push-ups 
M/40/5’8”/163

What you need to know is that in Jon Barrons PDF — Lessons from the Miracle Doctors, on page 105 has the following information about an effective alternative to the horror show known as bypass surgery.  “As it turns out, there is an alternative that’s so effective that in countries such as New Zealand, it’s against the law to perform a bypass unless this alternative has been tried first.  This treatment is called chelation therapy, and it could save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.”  He further states, “since chelation therapy would cost the medical establishment billions of dollars a year, it’s not surprising they don’t use it.”  There are also books to be found out there “Bypassing Bypass Surgery” and others on chelation therapy.
Why do I know about this?  In 1987 I buried my 48 year old mother.  She had a triple bypass and another 8 or so surgeries after that, culminating in the loss of both her legs above the knees and a massive stroke that effectively rendered her brain dead.  2.5 months and they had extracted every nickle they could from her body and insurance.  At 24 I signed the release to remove life support and 2 days later I closed mom’s eyes.
Modern medicine, with the full consent of our own government, has turned America into a medically enslaved nation.
The clock is ticking boy’s, your days in power are numbered.
Semper Fi

Started at 1 ended on 9, total reps 247.  

295  (started at 5-10-15, got into round of 11-22-33)

Completed 12/29/18 workout first: 30+14+54+30+80+28. 226 reps total, scaled to Abmat sit ups + pull ups. Rested 6 minutes. Then 1/1/19 workout. Completed 9+18+27, plus 5. Assisted strict pull ups, other movements Rx.

Thought starting at 10/20/30 would give me the opportunity to work on challenging unbroken sets... I was wrong ! Broke the set of 12 pull-ups and the struggle started to be real.

Finished with 18 push-ups on the set of 28 so managed 308 reps.

Good one !

Something has gone terribly wrong. Among other disturbing trends, US life expectancy has declined three years in a row despite a period of economic expansion. To be sure, opioid addiction and suicides have played a role. Nonetheless the top causes of death remain diet-related illnesses such as heart disease and cancer. Some chronic conditions, such as Alzheimer’s, are increasing rapidly (even controlling for age). (see http://fortune.com/2018/09/20/cdc-alzheimers-dementia-rate-to-double-by-2060/)

In a time of plenty, why are most committing suicide, swiftly or slowly? 

It’s not singly Republicans’ or Democrats’ fault. The decline began under Obama administration, during the first year of full implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It has continued under Trump and his typically, more uncouth embrace of food and beverage industry influence. Moreover, the same problems are happening throughout the developed world, so it is not just an American problem. 

Let’s consult Genesis. In the Garden of Eden, a speaking serpent enticed Eve to eat fructose. The serpent promised Eve, contra God, “Ye shall not surely die.” Satan (embodied by the serpent), spoke a half-truth. Eve would not die immediately upon consuming the forbidden fruit, but it would condemn her and her husband to unnecessary misery, followed later by a preventable death. And so suffered humanity.

Some academics have interpreted this tale as an allegory for transition from Eden’s hunter-gatherer lifestyle to the toilsome, disease-ridden, and tyrannically taxed agricultural society Adam and Eve’s offspring experienced outside the gates. This transition brought a decline in health, and increase in disease - first infectious, caused by crowding, then chronic, caused by bad diet and sedentarism. (For more on this transition I recommend Against the Grain by Yale University’s James C. Scott.)

The logical response to modern (in the broad sense) epidemics would be to look for modern causes. Having discerned those causes, perhaps we would return to at least some pre-modern habits as well. Why did we humans, self-acknowledged as rational beings, not follow logic’s course? Today’s post suggests a culprit: nutritional “science” and its luminaries such as Dr. Keys. This field, by a and large, attributed our modern epidemics to ancestral dietary components, alternately total fat and saturated fat. And as we have seen above and in the comments, a full and proper analysis of the data does not appear to support the conclusions of Keys and Co.

Back to Eden. As in Genesis, let’s grant the (fructose-absolving) devil his due. Who speaks today for Keys?

David Katz, allegedly of Yale University, and Walter Willett, whom Harvard University more enthusiastically embraces co-authored with others via the “True Health Initiative.” They defend the Seven Countries Study in their white paper, “Ancel Keys and the Seven Countries Study: An Evidence-based Response to Revisionist Histories.” (I have addressed Dr. Katz’s numerous, oft-undisclosed conflicts of interest here: https://keepfitnesslegal.crossfit.com/2016/09/26/david-katz-junk-foods-slyest-defender/)

Reading the white paper, we notice several points of divergence.

Did Keys propose total dietary fat, or saturated fat, as the primary independent variable responsible for heart disease? The CrossFit post focuses on the former, Katz and Willett’s white paper the latter. The white paper posits that in Keys’ study,

“Total dietary fat was not associated with coronary heart disease. For example, the Greek cohorts ate about 40% of their daily calories from fat and the Japanese ate only 10% while both cohorts had very low coronary disease rates. 3,4 SCS was the first systematic study to illustrate this important dichotomy, that low rates of coronary heart disease and, in fact, of total mortality can be found with low and high total fat intakes, depending on the nature/sources of the fat and the rest of the eating pattern.”

It appears that Keys initially considered dietary fat as the primary cause, and then later switched to saturated fat after further research. This retreat from dietary fat to saturated fat, culminating in the 2015 dietary guidelines’ erasure of an overall fat limit, is noteable by itself. Perhaps the troublesome case of dairy-sourced saturated fat will compel a further retreat.

Why did Keys only select these few countries to focus on when a wider data set would have likely have forced a more complex conclusion? Was it due to intentional bias, or practical constraints? The white paper claims Keys selected his countries “based on practicality and dietary variation.” Further, the paper defends Keys from “Allegations suggesting that SCS researchers chose locations where they already knew the outcomes.” Instead, these allegations of biased selection are “clearly false based on review of primary source material, the relevant timelines, and direct questioning of investigators.” Here the white paper assumes that Keys and co.’ statements can be taken on face value - that they truthfully understood and stated their own intentions, and that Keys’ knowledge of his prior results from 1953 did not unfairly influence the selection in his 1958 study. But perhaps it does not matter. Humans, even researchers, demonstrate ample capacity for self-deception. Even if Keys believed he selected his countries in good faith, that does not absolve him of the selection issues detailed above.

Gary wrote above that, “Had Keys chosen, for instance, France and Switzerland for two of his countries, instead of, say, Japan and Greece, he would have come up with an entirely different conclusion -- in this case, that consuming saturated fat is beneficial and heart healthy.” 

In response to this idea, the white paper states,
“France was indeed invited to participate in the Seven Countries Study … Ultimately, representatives from France decided not to participate, possibly due to lack of desire, lack of funding, or both. There was no explicit intent on the part of the American SCS researchers to include or exclude France.”

Though again one must ask whether it matters if Keys deliberately excluded France and other similar apparently non-conforming countries, if their undisputed absence nonetheless produced pernicious effects.

A familiar refrain is that correlation does not equal causation. Even Keys understood this, as Dr. Eades’ citation proved. How, though, would it be possible to demonstrate causation in nutrition? And is this likely to occur given the constraints, ethical, financial, and practical, of the field? Chronic diseases by definition require years, decades, even full generations to fully manifest. Studying them from meal to grave, in adequately controlled experiments, has not been achieved. Controlling what humans actually eat ranges from extremely difficult in the short term to fully impossible in the long term. And even were we to conduct perfectly controlled, long-term studies, the Sugar Association and Coca-Cola’s International Life Sciences Institute would produce and cite their own studies as well, with varying conclusions. Meta-analysis would surely conclude the record to be mixed, the implications unclear. More research would certainly be needed. 

Science is not going to save us from the serpent’s curse any time soon, I fear. Salvation must come from elsewhere.

To conclude, Katz and Willett’s white paper defending Keys nonetheless admits,

“high intake of refined carbohydrates is now considered to be a possible contributor to heart disease development; this was not evaluated.” 

Whups.

1-2-3 to 8-16-24 (15) 225 total reps. Dang my pull up bar in the garage was COLD!

Rx Started 1.2.3 Ended 10.20.30. 330 total reps

Start 1,2,3. Finish 8, 16, and 5. Total 197 reps. I'm on beginner normally!! 

Total reps 270
Starting point 1,2,3
Finish point 9,18,27

The new site looks sharp! This is a great way to start 2019 and a small glimpse of things to come. Happy New Year everyone. 

Starting Point 1,2,3 Ending 7,14,21 Total Reps 168

Starting point 1,2,3 finishing point 9 pull-ups, 12 pushups then out of time, total 237

Male. 40. 217 lbs. 
Started at 1-2-3. Finished at the completion of 7-14-21. 168 reps. Gotta start somewhere, right?
 

Super stoked on this new site. Nice work to everyone involved in getting this launched. 

332 reps RX
started at 1,2,3...
Finished 10 full rds... + 2 pull-ups

Started at 1,2,3 finished at round 11. Had to switch to knee push ups on round 8...

335 reps

334 reps.  Finished 10+20+30 and got 4 pull ups.  

Start 1,2,3 ---> Finish 8,16,24 + 9,12 ..... total 237reps

10-20-30 in 12

36m/69”/150lbs
10,20,30 plus 25 reps

If the situation is driven by money, us as crossfit coaches need to be doing are best to bring awareness and shed light to the community. Establisbing a proper nutrition system standard in crossfit that is clear for people to dive into that supports are science the way we do with are regular crossfit classes. I believe everyone as a coach and member needs more awareness and education to conquer our mission and ward off chronic disease. 

10-20-30 round (330 reps) as rx 

142 actually..

55 reps.

New layout looks great!  Congrats to the team for all the hard work making this happen, and cheers to Coach for continuing to lead the charge.

Sure hope the ‘Compare to’ functionally is retained with the new mainsite overhaul.  Afterall, measurable and repeatable are cornerstone to fitness evaluation.

I feel like health is not the first priority in "healthcare". Granted I'm sure there are many individuals at every level across the broad spectrum of healthcare providers that it IS a priority. The industry as a whole, however, seems to be only concerned with profit. As it is currently structured, a healthy population is not profitable. The misinformation, falsified or exaggerated studies that have become the status quo, have achieved success due to whom those findings profit the most. It isn't the general populace. Those of us in this community are actively engaged in positive change and truth yet we face an immense battle. Thank you CrossFit for leading this charge.

Start 1-2-3 END 10-20-30 total 275 reps! 

Great basement wod. 276 reps. 56 M 190lbs, 5'9" 

Started 1-2-3. Finished 10-20-30 + 5 pull-ups. Total 335 rx

Love this new layout!

Started 1-2-3. Ended at 8-16-24. Started round 9 and did 4 pullups

329 reps Rx

95 reps. Finished round of 5 + 5 pull-ups. Did pull-ups based on feel. If I had timed rests, I probably would have at least finished round of 6.

8-16-24: 188 reps
Great wod. Happy New Year 

1-10+11 strict pull-ups.
176reps as RX
Happy new year! :-)

Continuing my annual tradition, I have a Word.docx file which includes every main page WOD since 070929 that I am happy to share with anyone interested.  It totals more than 3,100 WODs, and makes a handy searchable (525 page!) reference document.

Send me an email at: tails192 (insert “@” symbol) yahoo.com and mention "WOD file", or "CrossFit file", or something similar. I'll collect email addresses for about a week, and then send it out.

Best wishes and fitness to all in 2019!

David T. M/59/5'8"/177

Very upsetting to read but I am looking forward to a new generation of informed and educated physicians helping their patients in the future. One patient at a time. @Crossfithealth

If the data does not support the predetermined conclusion that was obviously agreed upon well before the "study" took place then simply lie, twist, manipulate, and omit as necessary until you get the result you want......that is NOT science. Sadly, a large part of what the world has been lead to believe as "fact" or "truth" falls into this deceptive, misleading, and fraudulent category.  It is time the real truth is told. I'm proud CrossFit will be leading the charge.

Starting point: 1,2,3. Finishing point: 11,22,33. Total reps:356

Ancel Keys’ diet-heart hypothesis is a flat earth approach to nutrition. Whatever feels right must be true. “Eating fat makes you fat” is intuitive. To disprove it requires a detailed scientific explanation of the hormonal mechanisms involved in nutrition. Meanwhile, the food industry is peddling low-fat muffins and other junk food with “Heart Healthy” stickers on the packaging. And to top it off, the food industry is actively funding science that perpetuates Keys’ fraudulent work.

It’s important to understand not just that Keys was wrong, but how and why. Too many people think science is just a collection of facts. Articles like this are a great lesson in scientific thinking. Great start to the new website!

Starting Point: 1, 2, 3
Finishing Point: 10, 20, 30
Total Reps: 275

Awesome to see a Global brand like CrossFit shine a spotlight on the gross misinformation that has been perpetuated by commercial interests for the last 50 years.

The graph from Keys’ 1953 paper showing the tight correlation between deaths from heart disease and percent of calories from dietary fat is just that: A correlation.  It’s axiomatic in the research world that correlation is not causation.  It’s the mantra of any researcher worth his/her salt.  It’s incredible to me that anyone with good sense took this graph seriously in the first place.  After the cherry picking of countries had been exposed, it’s even more astonishing that anyone took Keys’ correlations as anything other than a joke.  Yet this simple chart and the Seven Countries Study that followed are the basis for the lipid hypothesis — the idea that dietary fat causes an increase in cholesterol, which, in turn, increases the risk for heart disease — that has altered the diets of Americans (and others the world over) leading to the rise of obesity and type 2 diabetes to epidemic proportions.  And that’s not to mention the trillion dollar’s worth of statins and other lipid-lowering drugs that have been sold worldwide.

All based on correlations from observational studies, which are worthless to prove causality.

Keys used his famous chart and his Seven Countries study to cudgel anyone who had the temerity to disagree with him into submission, even though his famous chart and famous study were worthless in terms of proving anything.  No one knew this any better than Ancel Key’s himself, as is evident from these paragraphs he wrote at the end of Epidemiologic Aspects of Coronary Artery Disease, a paper he published in 1957:

“Epidemiologic investigations promise to make major contributions to the discovery and application of effective control and preventative measures against coronary heart disease. Though even properly conducted epidemiologic studies have limitations, they offer several kinds of utility. It is foolish to ask epidemiology for basic information on the mechanism whereby an environmental factor produces or influences the development of a disease, but it can provide clues for research by other methods, and it provides a device for testing hypotheses, not as to truth or falsity, but merely as to consistency with the distribution of the disease in question.

“When the frequency of a disease and some environmental factor tend to vary in the same direction, this is a clue to be followed up by similar epidemiologic methods applied in a wider variety of circumstances and by such experiments as may be feasible. On the other hand, a hypothesis about a relationship between any two or more variables that may be represented in populations, including a disease or a factor known to have some basic relationship to it, may be tested by comparisons within and between populations. This is not a test to prove causality which is seldom accessible to critical test by epidemiology but simply a way to decide whether the hypothesis is consistent with the distribution of the disease.”

If you read what he writes, Keys obviously understands the limitations of epidemiological studies. Buried amongst the obfuscation above lurks the truth.

“It is foolish to ask epidemiology for basic information on the mechanism whereby an environmental factor produces or influences the development of a disease…”

“…it provides a device for testing hypotheses, not as to truth or falsity…”

“This is not a test to prove causality which is seldom accessible to critical test by epidemiology…”

Clearly Keys knows these kinds of studies don’t prove causality or much of anything else for that matter.  Yet he spent the bulk of his career performing such studies, using their data to vigorously promote the low-fat diet and the lipid hypothesis, and savagely attacking anyone who had the temerity to disagree with him.

It was joke science, but unfortunately the joke was on the millions of people who have become obese, diabetic, and spent money unnecessarily for a panoply of medicines, most of which are worthless in terms of prolonging life.

Well done .com

"Unfortunately, these biased data and the ways they were interpreted by Keys and others helped cement the belief that dietary fat causes heart attacks, and so the diet-heart hypothesis." 

This sentence embodies the heart of the issue with the 7 countries study but perhaps downplays the significance. The paradigm that was born from Keys and company (Diet-heart hypothesis) has done immeasurable damage to public health. Thankfully we are postured to correct course. 

I am personally  blessed to have been a CrossFitter from a young age which enhanced my ability to sniff out bullshit and value hard data over public opinion when it comes to what goes in my body. The majority of my clients, however, unfortunately cannot say the same. Most have suffered from Key's "science" in the form of miseducation (at best), health issues or unnecessary pharmaceutical interventions that cause more harm than good. 

Thank you Coach for steering the conversation back to where we went wrong and how we can correct course. 

So much of modern medicine doctrine is built on the false altar of Ancel Keys. The damage done is incalculable. 

New layout. Nice.

As this post discusses, Ancel Keys's famous (or infamous, depending on perspective) Seven Countries Study was a landmark study because nobody had ever done such a huge, multi-country study before. But it was also landmark in that it pioneered the practice, standard operating procedure still today, of overinterpreting associations as evidence of causal relationships. And Keys had helped pioneer this technique a decade earlier when he published his analysis of fat consumption and mortality in six countries. In both cases, he stacked the deck by choosing his countries in advance in such a way that he predetermined what he would find.   

There's a reason why researchers randomize study subjects, or select them at random, even when the subjects are entire nations or populations within those nations. It serves the purpose that shuffling cards does in a poker game and prevents precisely this type of deck stacking. (I spent much of last Saturday evening watching the 13-year-old whiz kid son of a friend doing some pretty damn impressive card tricks. You can make almost anything seem believable if you know where the cards are in advance, and never lose track of what you wanted to demonstrate before you started.) Had Keys chosen, for instance, France and Switzerland for two of his countries, instead of, say, Japan and Greece, he would have come up with an entirely different conclusion -- in this case, that consuming saturated fat is beneficial and heart healthy. There would have been no French paradox and perhaps we would not have had to live with the tragically misguided diet-heart hypothesis that these "landmark" studies and Keys's hypothesis helped advance and the low-fat-is-a-healthy-diet dogma that resulted.  

Yerushalmy and Hilleboe were the first to point out precisely this problem in Keys early paper followed memorably by the British nutritionist John Yudkin. By the time the first results from the Seven Countries Study had been published in 1970, it was left to Russel Smith (and his colleague Ed Pinckney) to critically and methodically examine the evidence in support of the diet-heart hypothesis and the low-fat dogma that was already beginning to take over the country. I used Smith and Pinckney's report when I was researching Good Calories, Bad Calories 20 years later, and went through much the same learning curve. By that I mean, I had begun investigating public health in the early 1990s because physicists I had worked with on my previous books urged me to get involved. They had the occasion to review the epidemiologic data in support of the idea that electromagnetic fields from power lines caused cancer and had been stunned -- dumfounded, as Smith might have said -- by the lack of rigor and the dismal understanding of science and basic statistical logic demonstrated by the researchers themselves. In particular, that epidemiologists would make biased observations, cherry pick the data to fit their preconceptions and then present the associations observed as implying a causal relationship when no such causality could be inferred. My first articles on public health issues (in The Atlantic and then the journal Science) delved into precisely these issues. I had spent the better part of a decade learning about the level of rigor and skepticism needed to establish reliable knowledge (to "not fool yourself and you're the easiest person to fool," as the Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman put it), and this was considered a luxury by epidemiologists -- too hard to do -- and so unnecessary. Ancel Keys was the master of this "surely we must be right, so let's not question it" approach to science, and much of the discipline still thinks and works this way.

Excited to try this one tomorrow!