Thanks for fighting to get the record strait.  CrossFit training is rarely defined and most of outsiders will call any HIIT training, CrossFit.  

CrossFit methodology is practice in an affiliate with a coach.  CrossFit methodology is also to my knowledge one of the only Fitness entity that offer it's entry level of knowledge and practical instructions in the Level 1 to everyone.  

A deliberately vague attempt to find a problem with CrossFit.  It's as if they wrote the Discussion beforehand...

I, for one, am not surprised in this day-and-age of loose ethics and lazy work that a paper such as this is published. But, I am grateful to all who call it out. Thanks to CrossFit we have a living example of doing the right thing.
 

This “study” is not science, it's a random “survey”. It’s embarrassing that anyone would even publish this. It’s junk. 

The scientific method is not used anywhere in this survey. I find it hard to believe that there was a null hypothesis when reading the survey questions, emphasizing nutritional supplements and osteoporosis. Was that a part of the null hypothesis or were the authors hoping to find a p value under O.05 to create and claim a causal relationship? 

There are no definitions. Injury is not defined. Weightlifting is used interchangeably with weight training. Were they asking about individuals who weight lift, or go to the globo gym and use the machines and 5 pound weights? 

My favorite is that unique links were not established for survey responders. So one person could have replied 50 times. Or 454. 

There was no IRB approval. Then there is the obvious flaw of recall bias. And selection bias. 

This “survey” has the methodology, accuracy and scientific rigor of an evite or insta poll (“do you like my outfit yes/no?”), not a study. To make claims based on a survey lacking control or definitions is dangerous. Publishing it is embarrassing to the scientific and medical community. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

You have pages dedicated to: Essentials, At Home, Health, Sport, Battles... but your pages of Affiliate and Training are lacking.   I feel these two can be utilized much more (and they have in the past versions of the website).

Affiliate:  Bring back all the Affiliate focus stories, videos, etc.  

Training:  Atleast put the direct link to the Seminar Photos here.  Also include all movement/workout demos here.

Message Boards:  how do I get here?  There's no visible link.  

Affiliate Owner Message Board???!!!:  Never seen it, but i've heard rumors of it.

CrossFit Journal:  how do I get here?  There's no visible link.

Member Profile / CrossFit App:  Messenging on here (like this) should be seemless between web to phones.  An actual App needs to be created and MAINTAINED to make this work.  I think a HUGE profit would be to utilize a notification system onto the phones or email when you get a reply on this message board.  Right now, if someone replys to this message, i have no idea (and may have to scroll through hundreds of posts to find this one).

(btw... i know how to get to the above links by direct link, but there is no visible link for new members coming to the site.)

I submitted the following comment to a reporter today:

The damage caused by the National Strength and Conditioning Association's fake research continues. NSCA's fraudulent paper on CrossFit has been cited multiple times this year, despite its 2017 retraction and 2015 correction. 

Beyond citing retracted research, this new paper also misrepresents cited work, does not define basic terms, and fails to control for exposure. It's a complete mess. 

Legitimate research on CrossFit has reached a near unanimous conclusion: 'The injury incidence rate associated with CrossFit training was low, and comparable to other forms of recreational fitness activities.' 
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28085123)

That the authors in this study reached a different conclusion indicates their own shoddy methodology, not a real finding. 

We expect and hope that the Orthopedic Journal of Sports Medicine will retract this paper shortly. It is a shame it was ever published. Each day it remains in print is a new smirch on the journal's reputation.

"Annie" 6:59 

Is it because social media is “a distraction” from real life,  because maybe it’s bad for us, is that the real reason?  Leading the charge to be better?  I think that would be a good reason.  And honestly, main site is making me better every day.  

No Before and After pictures?

God bless the rest

For the life of me I cannot understand why the Devor paper continues to be cited. As a retracted paper it is no longer a part of the scientific record. It is not curable. It does not exist.