CFWUx2 OHS 10 10 5 3 3 1 1 1
40:25

Scales the l-sit to butt off the floor with legs flexed 5 sets of 12 secs, handstands were 6 sets of 20 secs

24:45 

This is a call for balance.  Avoid sunburns by exposing yourself gradually to the sun.  Potentially recognize that if you go from the north to a vacation down south you are at risk of a sunburn.  Other then that the sun is good for you.  It is what creates life on earth....let's remember that.  

1 minute plank
1 minute push up hold position 
1 mile bike

25:23 knee holds off bench. Definitely need to work on flexibility and core strength 

scaled to hanging knee hold.
20:35

L-sit hold was a knee raise hold from the rings and the handstand hold was holding 96# overhead
31:18

18:26. 2R. 1m accumulative hang tuck in 3 or 4 attempts trying to extend feet every so often. 2m accumulative HS in 3 or 4 attempts. Sub 50r mix (sdlhp@25kg/wall ball@9kg).

33:22 almost went rxd but decided to cut the free-standing handstands to accumulate 90 seconds each round. Counted each handstand attempt as a second as well. L-sits from the floor with elbow pits turned forward, toes pointed and legs straight :09/:06/:09/:06/:09/:06/:09/:06 each round. Final row took 1:50.8

27 min, sub the row by deadlift high pull 2 min

2 rounds only, L-sit on 40# dumbbells, and subbed 400m run for row.

20:54

16:32 (l-sit on side of machine)

17:20 scaled 

L-sits off treadmill; handstand hold facing away from wall

30:10

23:13 - scaled tuck hold on boxes, that wod looked super easy and was freaking not! Awesome workout!

M50/5'5"/155

3RFT-

1:00 L-SIT, 6"BOX
2:00 HS Hold against wall
400M run

20:25
L-sit 10 seconds hold, 7 seconds rest x 6
HS holds various time holds within the 2:00

Just made these as a side with a burger patty and a slice of cheese! Hit the spot!

27:23, tucked l-sit from support, piked handstand hold (started with handstand on first round then a 45degree hold from a wall walk on the second round, last round was in a piked pushup position)

Cooked it up twice last week...

26:36
Handstand holds killed me 

36:42 from dbs 

3 rounds for time of:
1 minute of tuck sit on parallettes
2 minutes holding a handstand (face to wall)
500-m row (~1:55)
36:10

27:40.  Subbed to hanging l sit from pull up bar and rings. He broke up in 30 sec blocks. Row 1:55 each time. 

25:07. L-sits scaled to 1 min hold from ground butt and one leg off ground, alternating leg at 30 second mark. HS hold scaled to 2 rounds of 30 sec HS hold feet against wall + 30 sec plank. Row Rx. Completed 1/24/19.

32:05 used parallettes for the L sits and handstands were against a wall. 

23:54 scaled to tuck L sit hold 

Man this looks good. I have to try this.

Scaled to 2 rounds with L-sit holds from a dip bar
20:57

M/25/80kg

This one sucked but I LOVED it! Probably should have scaled something more because it took me a while, but loved the grind.

Did L-sits from wooden blocks about 4" off ground
Floating handstand holds facing wall
500m row

Time: 36:40

Scaled
3 rounds
:40 L-sit from ground
1:20 free handstand
Run 400 m
Set time cap at 22 minutes, just got under

21:55

21:16
Fiancí© 20:16

30:17
L-sits on parallettes
Handstands freestanding, but on forearms 

43 year old male/230 lbs.
17:05 scaled
1 min knee raises via box holds
2 min 25 db each hand overhead hold
500 m row

22:29

sub l-sit from ground with l.sit on high paralelttes and with 1 leg straight and the other in tuck. time 46'

30:54
1 min of bent knee from boxes
1 min holding a handstand 
500m ski erg

24:45
Lsit with feet on ground
45 barbell hold over head
500 m

D
Same scale with 15 barbell26:00

24:52
L-sit on parallettes 
Handstand hold wall 

26:32 (1 min knee hold, 2 min practicing hand stands, 500 m row)

25:38 (1 min knee hold, 30 sec handstand hold) 

M/47/166 lbs/5"9"

21:56 

L-sits on parallettes 
Handstand hold used wall for 2nd and 3rd round 

1. 500m Row 1:48
2. 500m Row 1:58
3. 500m Row 2:08

 Sneaky workout: my Core was completely taxed after this one.

Scaled with parallets and wall
29:30

26:30. Modified hs on wall l sit 1 leg up and switch darn hard    Would never do this if it wasn’t programmed!!

26:40 used wall for HS with some free stand balance

M/56/6'2"/170
L-sit from dip bar, each round - L-sit  2 @ 15 sec, tuck 2@ 15 sec 
Handstand against wall, but continually attempted free stand as much as possible -  took 7-8 sets by last round.
rowed at about a 1:50-1:55 pace, with drag factor at ~140
24:25

Damn just realized I scaled this wrong 😊 reading is fundamental but I did L sits for 30 seconds holding kettlebells cause off the ground and a minute wasn't happening 1 minute handstand hold and 2 minutes single unders. 51:07 I'm sad the scaling told on here would've been more effective I played myself 

Definitely trying this one. Thanks!

For Lsit I did it on a bench in unbroken sets of 1 minute.

For handstand hold I did :20 of a handstandhold and when that broke I went into a pike immediately until 1 minute mark. Shook out the shoulders and held 1 min pike focused on proper loading of shoulders.

I did a 500m fast run

19:17 vsit hold HS hold wall 500row

Had to embrace the suck on this one. 36:18 - subbed row for deadlift high-pulls with steel bar. Last round had to modify to hang tuck and pike. I’m going to go die now...

Only 2 rounds in me wrists too punished by handstands

L-sits were unbroken single legged

17:32

Major weaknesses exposed

23:52 no access to rower, subbed 400m run for row.

17:25

Very interesting article!
  
As a fair-skinned, red-headed person, the sun has always been demonized as a sure-fire way to get skin cancer.  I'm constantly being told to avoid it as much as possible, and to slather on the sunscreen if sun exposure is eminent.  
Now, I've had my fair share of sunburns and will be the first one to speak up on how terrible and uncomfortable they are, but there's got to be a balance between avoidance and over-exposure.
  
The statistics in this article are compelling, as they speak to the likelihood of getting skin cancer from overexposure to the sun when compared with developing some form of cardiovascular disease from a lack of it.

The statement,
“Avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor of a similar magnitude as smoking, in terms of life expectancy.”
is pretty wild when it's put into those terms.

I'm not saying I'm going to avoid using sunscreen going forward, or run out and get to work on my freckle collection, but it's interesting to get a new perspective on something that has long been viewed unfavorably by people in certain circles.

That second round the L sit was so hard with breathing heavy after the run!  Tough workout, so good!

L sit using 25# plates 
Handstand hold on wall
Ran 400 for row
Scaled time a little on the latter rounds
15:58

15:03 Rx

Loved the handstand practice 

M/44/6'2"/185

Made it through 1.5 rounds of L-sits from the floor I really slowed to about 3 sec holds so transitioned to off the back of the rower was able to hold 5-10 secs each time from there the rest as rx'd...30:30

27:34rx

Lsits in 10 second intervals.  Quads kept cramping.  

@ Crossfit Forgiven
27-21-15-9
Pwr cln 95#
Push press 95#
DU
17:51
m/48/175

3 rounds 4 time
1 min L-sit hold 15 sec at a time
2 min Handstand/wall 30 sec at a time
500 m row on C2  1:52, 1:56, 1:53
17:46

M/42/5'4"/145lbs
As Rx'd
22:50

36:33 rx 

25:28 rx'dish. Some extremities were very cold after this. Nothing bad, just weird.

21:42
3 Rds
1 min L-sit hold (btwn stools)
2 min Handstand hold
500m row

Handstand hold wasn't too bad broke it into 1 min & 1 min. Rows: 2:23/2:19/2:23. 
Before the WOD I kept trying the L-sits from the floor but could either get my butt off the floor(and one foot)  or both my feet, but still not getting both at the same time. Don't know if I'm just not strong enough yet or doing something wrong.  So did them between stools.

Looks great! I'm making this is week. Love the added cashew nuts for a little crunch.

21:30, not fully completed handstands. Still practice HS as beginner. Scaled last round L sit to one leg support L sit.

2 rounds: 30:00. Used box for L- sit 

27:24 L-sit on parallettes 

18:48. Tuck hold on the parallettes.  

M/44yo/5'8/#199
22:14_scaled
tuck sits on parallettes
HS hold against wall
1 mile on assault bike (knee pain)

This report summarizes a key conundrum in current medical practice. 

It goes something like this.

What at the time seems an absolutely reasonable explanation for an interesting perhaps even exciting observation, gradually but progressively becomes the sole accepted explanation. At first it has only a few believers — notably those who made the discovery. But with time the originators of the idea are able to transmit their enthusiasm to key thought leaders in their discipline.  Soon their idea finds its way into medical textbooks and so spreads around the world. Once it is in the textbooks it means the entire medical profession is convinced.  So this new idea becomes accepted as the “truth”, as if it is a law of nature. 

With time, careers and sometimes the financial health of large companies — particularly pharmaceutical companies — may become dependent on this new idea remaining as the sole “truth”. In this way a natural resistance arises against anyone or anything that threatens the intellectual monopoly that that idea has come to enjoy.

But often that which comes to seem such a perfectly reasonable explanation for the original observation, somehow avoids the intense scrutiny of rigorous scientific testing. It just mysteriously slips through the cracks. 

This is particularly likely if the idea became an accepted “truth” before perhaps the early 1990s. For it is only since then that the bar of evidence needed to “prove” a particular idea has been raised sufficiently high. Before then it was easier for an idea to be accepted as “true” without sufficient evidence.

But even if a study has passed a higher bar of evidence, that does not mean it is “true”.
Perhaps finding from a number of studies do indeed suggest that the idea is “true”. But for one or other reason no one may yet have felt it necessary to do what is really important in science — to design and implement experiments, the specific aim of which is to refute or disproved the idea being tested.


Recall what Einstein wrote: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”.  

He also explained that on most topics, we can never be certain that we have established what is the absolute truth. Because we can never know if we have designed the one final and perfect experiment that would disprove our “truth”.

Which brings us to the substance of this article. 

Like everyone at medical school I was taught that the sun is the enemy of our skin. So I knew that excessive sun exposure is the direct cause of skin cancers and that the worst form of skin cancer, malignant melanoma, can be caused by a single severe episode of sunburn anytime in one’s youth. We can call that the conventional wisdom as taught in all medical schools around the world (at least until very recently).


As a result I was a keen user of sunscreen until recently when I began to understand that the issue is not quite that simple.  

The idea that any sun exposure is bad for the skin is, as author Rowan Jacobsen details in his article, a key mantra of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). Importantly I would suggest it likely that the AAD survives, in part, because of sponsorship from companies that produce sunscreens. And why not? If the AAD honestly believes that sunscreen protects the skin from skin cancers and if it wants to educate the world about the dangers of sun exposure, then using sunscreen money to do this can hardly be considered unethical. Ethical issues arise if sunscreen use is unnecessary or worse, if it is harmful.

As so often happens, information that topples the conventional wisdom often comes from a completely unexpected source. In this case it is the realization that humans with high vitamin D levels appear to enjoy superior health. And their high Vitamin D levels come from frequent sun exposure, rather than from vitamin supplementation. 

Thus the question: What does the balance of evidence show: If we avoid sun exposure we may well spare ourselves from skin cancers.  But what are the negative consequences? The rest of the article reads like an argument between The Anointed whose belief in the conventional wisdom is absolute and unshakeable and can never change. 

And those, the Skeptics, who prefer to see what the evidence, especially if it is new, shows.


The part of The Anointed in this exchange is taken by David Fisher, chair of the department of dermatology at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Fisher “knows” that the risk of skin cancer is increased by sun exposure so the risks will always exceed any potential benefits. End of story as far as he is concerned. Like The Anointed in all walks of medical science, he has no interest in any information that conflicts with his superior wisdom. Fully to understand how The Anointed think and act, it’s helpful to read the book by Thomas Sowell (1).


The opposite of The Anointed is the sceptic who believes that “knowing” is not enough and that the role of the medical scientist is to give advice based on ALL the scientific evidence. The sceptic in this exchange is Scottish dermatologist Richard Weller. Note that Weller once believed exactly that which Fisher holds to be an anointed fact.

Weller presents evidence to show that whilst skin cancers may be slightly increased in those with excessive sun exposure, this is largely irrelevant because 97-99% of skin cancers are only locally invasive and so are not (usually) lethal. The other 1-3% of skin cancers are malignant melanomas which are horribly invasive cancers but which if caught early (which they are not always) have a 99% cure rate. Thus avoiding the sun purely to prevent malignant melanomas may not be rational especially since a majority of melanomas are probably unrelated to excessive sun exposure. So the better option is to strive to detect melanomas early in their growth pattern, before they invade the body.

But Weller’s key argument is the finding from a 20 year study of 30 000 Swedish women which found that those who avoided the sun were twice as likely to die during the study. Making avoiding the sun as toxic as smoking in terms of its effects on longevity.

For me that is the clincher. 

In summary this article shows what happens when we take a reductionist view of human health without understanding the full picture. Clearly avoiding the sun is profoundly unhealthy for us. And the use of sunscreens may also be unhealthy because of certain toxic chemicals that they contain.

Whereas there is growing evidence that regular sun exposure may have benefits, the magnitude of which we might not have expected.

But as Weller points out, humans and our hominin ancestors have been on the earth for millions of years before sunscreens were invented. 

In retrospect we seem to have done pretty well without them.

Reference:  

Sowell T. The Vision of the Anointed. Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. Basic Books, New York, NY. 1995. 

Fundamentals, Virtuosity, and Mastery
An Open Letter to CrossFit Trainers
CrossFit Journal August 2005
Greg Glassman
In gymnastics, completing a routine without error will not get you a perfect score,
the 10.0–only a 9.7. To get the last three tenths of a point, you must
demonstrate “risk, originality, and virtuosity” as well as make no mistakes in
execution of the routine.
Risk is simply executing a movement that is likely to be missed or botched;
originality is a movement or combination of movements unique to the athlete–a
move or sequence not seen before. Understandably, novice gymnasts love to
demonstrate risk and originality, for both are dramatic, fun, and awe inspiring–
especially among the athletes themselves, although audiences are less likely to
be aware when either is demonstrated.
Virtuosity, though, is a different beast altogether. Virtuosity is defined in
gymnastics as “performing the common uncommonly well.” Unlike risk and
originality, virtuosity is elusive, supremely elusive. It is, however, readily
recognized by audience as well as coach and athlete. But more importantly,
more to my point, virtuosity is more than the requirement for that last tenth of a
point; it is always the mark of true mastery (and of genius and beauty).
There is a compelling tendency among novices developing any skill or art,
whether learning to play the violin, write poetry, or compete in gymnastics, to
quickly move past the fundamentals and on to more elaborate, more
sophisticated movements, skills, or techniques. This compulsion is the novice’s
curse–the rush to originality and risk.
The novice’s curse is manifested as excessive adornment, silly creativity, weak
fundamentals and, ultimately, a marked lack of virtuosity and delayed mastery. If
you’ve ever had the opportunity to be taught by the very best in any field you’ve
likely been surprised at how simple, how fundamental, how basic the instruction
was. The novice’s curse afflicts learner and teacher alike. Physical training is no
different.
What will inevitably doom a physical training program and dilute a coach’s
efficacy is a lack of commitment to fundamentals. We see this increasingly in
both programming and supervising execution. Rarely now do we see prescribed
the short, intense couplets or triplets that epitomize CrossFit programming.
Rarely do trainers really nitpick the mechanics of fundamental movements. 
I understand how this occurs. It is natural to want to teach people advanced and
fancy movements. The urge to quickly move away from the basics and toward
advanced movements arises out of the natural desire to entertain your client and
impress him with your skills and knowledge. But make no mistake: it is a
sucker’s move. Teaching a snatch where there is not yet an overhead squat,
teaching an overhead squat where there is not yet an air squat, is a colossal
mistake. This rush to advancement increases the chance of injury, delays
advancement and progress, and blunts the client’s rate of return on his efforts. In
short, it retards his fitness.
If you insist on basics, really insist on them, your clients will immediately
recognize that you are a master trainer. They will not be bored; they will be awed.
I promise this. They will quickly come to recognize the potency of fundamentals.
They will also advance in every measurable way past those not blessed to have
a teacher so grounded and committed to basics.
Training will improve, clients will advance faster, and you will appear more
experienced and professional and garner more respect, if you simply recommit to
the basics.
There is plenty of time within an hour session to warm up, practice a basic
movement or skill or pursue a new PR or max lift, discuss and critique the
athletes’ efforts, and then pound out a tight little couplet or triplet utilizing these
skills or just play. Play is important. Tire flipping, basketball, relay races, tag,
Hooverball, and the like are essential to good programming, but they are
seasoning–like salt, pepper, and oregano. They are not main courses.
CrossFit trainers have the tools to be the best trainers on earth. I really believe
that. But good enough never is, and we want that last tenth of a point, the whole
10.0. We want virtuosity!!

27:52. Hand stand holds with the feet barely touching the wall. The holds were difficult the first round and got real hard after that. Subbed 75 reps of 60lb low pulley rows sitting on a scooter to simulate the rower

Scaled to seated knee raise and hold from a dip bar and HS against a wall.

24:14

28:44 as Rx as possible but Scaled 
L-sits on parallettes
HS w toes on-off wall as lightly as possible
Accumulated time for all movements 

M-42-69-170#

*Those who question this, probably aren’t doing it right. #Mainsite2019 

20:43

L-sit scaled leg raise from bar and tried from ground really hard
Handstand facing wall (lower back hurting for some reason?)
500 m row

Amazing, grueling WOD. Loved it. I mean I HATED it but I loved it.

M/33/5'10"/185

27:24 RX

Rounds were taking me about 9min a piece. L-Sits were on Low parallettes, legs long, toes pointed. :20 chunks for almost the whole WOD. 

Handstands were done with fingertips 1" away from the wall, a nasty drill I picked up at the CF Gymnastics course. :50,:40,:30.

Rows were 1:50, 1:49, 1:45.

30’17”
M/ 35/ 1,80m/ 80kg
First Round my Butt stay off the floor, but no in round 2 and 3.
My Legs stayed extended all Rounds. In round 2 and 3 because my butt stay on the floor my legs plus uped.
Maybe don’t right, but my time score uped too much.

30’17”
M/ 35/ 1,80m/ 80kg
First Round my Butt stay off the floor, but no in round 2 and 3.
My Legs stayed extended all Rounds. In round 2 and 3 because my butt stay on the floor my legs plus uped.
Maybe don’t right, but my time score uped too much.

41:56

L-sit on ground
Handstand against wall
500 m C2

M/44/6”5/#238

19:29 with 400m run instead of row.

16:35
Scaled L Sit to static knee raise from dip bar (did Tabata style for 60 Sec) Tried Rx L-Sit and couldnt get 5 sec.  :(
Did Handstand Hold practice against wall for 2 min. (Tabata Style again)
500m Row 1:45, 1:45, 1:39

19:19. Scaled as broke l sit and h/s hold when I needed to

Row 1 2:23
Row 2 2:22
Row 3 2:11

19:19. Scaled as broke l sit and h/s hold when I needed to

Row 1 2:23
Row 2 2:22
Row 3 2:11

53 YOM 5’6” 217.5

Scaled
3 rounds for time of:

1 minute of L-sit hold from dip bar not parallel 
2 minutes holding a handstand against wall
500-m row

1. 500m Row 2:14
2. 500m Row 2:10
3. 500m Row 2:08

Subbed ring L-sits; wall-facing handstands; 20cal on elliptical. Total time 22:37.

22:32
Don’t know if I did it to RX standards. 

21:31 - i scale l-sit hold from ground to tuck up hold from boxes - really hard workout, but loved it

Completed, scaled:
-L-Sit hold on ground (attempts)- lift one leg at time
-Handstand Hold
-sub 400m Run
Holds were for as long as able in the time periods prescribed.

1min parallel bar knee tuck sit
2min wall support hand stand
500m row

22min 35sec

L-sits using 6" tall parallettes
Handstand holds w/ feet against the wall
Rx 500m rows
5 max effort L-sits w/ feet off the floor, then finished the minute with abwheel work.  Generally got about 8-10 sec/effort.  Frustrating, as I do 25 GHD sit-ups every day during warm-up.
5 max effort handstand holds got me thru the 2 minutes.
All 3 rows sub-2:00
31:52

3 RFT:

1 minute of V-up hold
2 minutes handstand hold
500m Row

21:07

Looks fantastic, but is that it?  I'd be hungry in an hour! lol

L sit on parallettes contracted holds for as long as possible. Don’t have the flexor and quad strength to hold in an L, more like a 110 degree angle. 
Handstand work. Held longest for 45 s. Last 2 sets broken up into 4 holds. 
Rows in 2:09, 2:13 and 2:12. I have not felt that energetic for the past 4 days. 

3 rounds for time of:
1 minute of L-sit hold from the ground
2 minutes holding a handstand
400-m run
16:50 scaled
Not sure I understood exactly how to do L-sits in the ground. I mostly was just holding my butt off the floor. Didn’t seem right. Handstands against a wall quickly were scaled to pike handstands with feet on treadmill armrest. Runs on treadmill at 9.0 and 9.1 mph (just over 6:30 mile pace).
M/38/5’10”/170

22:12. Had to eventually use boxes on L-Sit and wall for HS holds. Great workout. I was challenged. Love the new programming with more strict movements and static holds. These movements have tremendous carryover.

Variations of progression for the L-sit from "Overcoming Gravity" by Steven Low.  these are the two lead up phases to performing the L-sit completely.

Phase 1: Tuck L-Sit 
Scapulas fully depressed and neutral.  Avoid rounding shoulders forward our forcing scapular retraction.  Place hands backward, lean back so your weight shifts to your hands and slowly lift your feet off the ground. This is a very simple hold. Executed on the floor to ensure proper shoulder activation. Make sure your arms remain locked straight.  depress your scapula as far as possible so your shoulders do not rise up toward your ears.  your thighs should be at a 45 degree angle with your torso and your late should be at a 90-degree angle with your thighs.

If you find you are progressing quickly you may have the strength to move to the next level immediately. if you cannot lift your legs off of the ground, this is where the chair L-sit hold would be beneficial.

Phase 2: One-leg bent L-Sit

Same initial start as phase one. Place your hands backward. While in a seated position with one leg bent (one leg straight) lean back and place your weight on your hands. Lift your legs off the ground completely. This is the transition between the tuck L-sit and the full L-sit.  

This is so good!! 

Scaled L sit to rings. 20:14 Peace 

21:21 scaled

Got the L Sits done in 2-3 attempts

The Handstand Holds held me up because I can only hold for 20-40 seconds. Looking back, I probably should’ve scaled

Sub’d the row for 2 min Airdyne Bike

Subbed Lsit for tuck sit off the back of the rower.
Handstands against a wall.
Row, split times all 1'58".

The topic is great and illustrates why we need thorough and comprehensive scientific evaluations before making public health recommendations. Or moreover, how thorough scientific evaluations aren’t done before making public health recommendations. 

There are benefits as well as risks from sun exposure. Sun exposure is the major alterable risk factor for melanoma, and no one is arguing that. But there is a correlation between lack of sun exposure and cardiovascular disease, and mortality from cvd are far greater than from skin cancer. There are other risks (skin damage, sun burns, sun spots) and other benefits (other cancers, mood, bone, immune system). The risk/benefit ratio needs to be evaluated to sort out how much sunlight is safe, and how this can be optimized for overall health. 

Here is a review of the risks and benefits of sun exposure (and research). 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5129901/

The answer can’t be zero sunlight, and take Vit D pills, and antihypertensive medication because you have zero sunlight. I can understand that for a patient with a history of melanoma, but not a public health push. That’s where we lose. 

Here’s a link to a Ted Talk by Dr Weller on the pathophysiology and study of sun exposure and heart disease. 

https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_weller_could_the_sun_be_good_for_your_heart/up-next

15:15 RX.

To piggy-back off a point Gary made...

There are parts of this article that are a little questionable, mostly the claims about the health benefits of sunlight. It's extrapolation from observational evidence, and should be called out as such.

But there's a core point that's more powerful - that we may not have enough information to "reject the null", where the null hypothesis is that sun exposure isn't killing us. Deference to evolutionary arguments is a dangerous game, but so is synthetically reducing (to a level humans are unlikely to have experienced biologically in our evolutionary history) our exposure to something the vast majority of humans have been exposed to for most of our lives for thousands of years. There is a good chance that “something” (here, sunlight) could affect our bodies and our health in ways we don’t immediately grasp, in which case we could unintentionally do more harm then good.

Whenever we impose a prescription on the population, we are implicitly making a calculation that the harms we are averting are greater than whatever harms we may be causing. One of the unfortunate stories we've already seen on these pages, and will see many times to come, is the concept that we can distill the benefits down to a single variable, and so manipulate a complex biological system so long as we can counteract our impact on that variable. Here, the implied argument was that sun exposure primarily benefitted us because of its effects on Vitamin D, and so we could deliver benefit without cost by putting on sunblock and supplementing D. In some ways the lipid hypothesis was similar, arguing that all we had to focus on was lowering total cholesterol, and any secondary effects of doing so were benign or nonexistent. If we are correct that these biological systems are that simple, then the argument holds. If we’re not, we’re using thousands, or millions, of humans as test subjects and hoping the unknown unknowns aren’t consequential.

I finally got to watch some football this weekend, so to analogize: The ruling on the field is that an environmental factor humans have lived with for thousands of years is not net-harmful. To overturn it, we need clear and obvious evidence that is not the case. And to make that argument, we ought to be convinced we understand BOTH the costs and the benefits, clearly and comprehensively. It seems a lot of broadly targeted interventions focus on only one side of that equation, and so reject the null on that basis prematurely.

In our book Protein Power LifePlan in 2000, we spent an entire chapter advocated taking the sun and for all the good reasons outlined in this article, except for the great new info that's come out on nitric oxide, which wasn't known then. That all by itself is reason enough to bask in a daily dose of sun. But what about skin cancers? 

The best protection against skin cancer? A good tan. The body is designed with the world's most perfect sunscreen built right in -- melanin -- with the melanocytes sending out packets of melanin from the dermis to the higher layers in response to sun exposure, providing 'shade' that doesn't wash or sweat off. And one of the things that melanin granules shade is the melanocytes themselves, protecting them from the deeper penetrating UVA rays that could damage them and up the risk for melanoma.

 Regular, thoughtful, graduated sun exposure that allows the even dispersal of melanin to occur (aka, building up a tan) offers the best burn protection of all -- and lets us enjoy all the many benefits of sun with none of the guilt. 

Yes, superficial skin cancers can/will occur with age, especially on the face, ears, backs of the hands in fair-skinned people. Wear a hat! Or if you must, use some screen on ears, face, and backs of the hands. But don't let fear of a superficial (easily treatable) minor skin cancer militate against the huge metabolic and hormonal benefits of sun exposure. We're designed to welcome it and we should. 

Interesting article. I’ve always been skeptical of the sun screen advice for much the same reason that the author is: since we evolved walking around in the sun half naked (or so I assume) and without sunscreen, shouldn’t the null hypothesis be that sun exposure, at the very least, is benign? (And I say that having both a red-headed spouse who likes to joke that she doesn’t burn in the sun, she tumors – maybe a Woody Allen line originally – and a red-headed son who may never know what it’s like to go outside unlathered in sunscreen.) 

That said, much to most of the authors arguments (and the researchers, by implication) is based on associations that are then, regrettably, mistaken to imply causality. I would think health journalists would know better than to do this – in Stephen Pinker’s latest book, he makes the declaration that  no intelligent people should mistake correlation for causality and I’d like to think he’s right – and yet the author does repeatedly, or he simply neglects to consider clinical trials worthy of discussion. 

He does imply that Weller did one trial, although he did not suggest it was randomized and so causality could really be inferred: “Sure enough, when he exposed volunteers to the equivalent of 30 minutes of summer sunlight without sunscreen, their nitric oxide levels went up and their blood pressure went down. Because of its connection to heart disease and strokes, blood pressure is the leading cause of premature death and disease in the world, and the reduction was of a magnitude large enough to prevent millions of deaths on a global level.”

But from then on it’s all correlation, often embarrassingly so: 

“Still, Weller kept finding evidence that didn’t fit the official story. Some of the best came from Pelle Lindqvist, a senior research fellow in obstetrics and gynecology at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute, home of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Lindqvist tracked the sunbathing habits of nearly 30,000 women in Sweden over 20 years. Originally, he was studying blood clots, which he found occurred less frequently in women who spent more time in the sun–and less frequently during the summer. Lindqvist looked at diabetes next. Sure enough, the sun worshippers had much lower rates. Melanoma? True, the sun worshippers had a higher incidence of it–but they were eight times less likely to die from it. So Lindqvist decided to look at overall mortality rates, and the results were shocking. Over the 20 years of the study, sun avoiders were twice as likely to die as sun worshippers.”

This was discussed a bit in a recent post – the issues of what can be learned about causality from these kinds of observations – but the simple point here is whether we can imagine alternative hypotheses for the associations observed. In this case, there’s an obvious one: maybe the sun worshippers are in better physical shape than those who stay out of the sun. Maybe they’re healthier and leaner to begin with. Maybe they live healthier lifestyles and engage in more physical activity. Heck, maybe they consume less sugar (my favorite radical hypothesis). Who knows. But  having lived in Los Angeles near the beach for a decade of my life (Santa Monica and Venice, to be precise), I’m willing to speculate that those folks who spend time worshipping the sun are better built than those who don’t, and so are inherently healthier – whether from birth or because they are dedicated to engaging in healthy lifestyles and exercise. Not all of them, certainly, but the trend seems undeniable. I would even speculate that a willingness to wear a tiny bathing suit in public is a marker of being lean and healthy. 

Here’s another paragraph where the author really goes a bit off the deep end in this regard: 

“Meanwhile, that big picture just keeps getting more interesting. Vitamin D now looks like the tip of the solar iceberg. Sunlight triggers the release of a number of other important compounds in the body, not only nitric oxide but also serotonin and endorphins. It reduces the risk of prostate, breast, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers. It improves circadian rhythms. It reduces inflammation and dampens autoimmune responses. It improves virtually every mental condition you can think of. And it’s free.”

I’m assuming we know that sun exposure triggers nitric oxide, serotonin and endorphin release based on experimental research – i.e., put people in the sun or under a sun lamp and see what happens. (It seems to do that for me which is one reason why I moved to California to begin with.) That it reduces the risk of all these cancers and so on is clearly a misstatement. What I’m assuming the author means is that sun exposure associates with a reduced risk of these cancers and that only implies the hypothesis that it plays a causal role. Testing that hypothesis requires randomized trials. If they’d been done or were in the works, the author would have mentioned it. And they’d have to be huge, and we’d have heard of them.  So I’m skeptical. Interesting hypothesis and I agree that we’re probably safe playing in the sun so long as we don’t purposely try to fry our skins (as we did in my youth). But, but, but… I wish health journalists and editors at Outside, in writing an otherwise excellent article, understood the important difference between association and causality.

YUM-O! This looks fantastic! I have to try it.

Intended Stimulus
This is a longer effort that will tax your core inmensely as well as your metabolic capacity. Both holds will place a high demand on your mental and physical stamina. The rowing intervals will raise your heart rate up forcing you to work the gymnastics movements while winded. Athletes should choose modifications that are challenging but that allow them to complete the holds with little rest. Make sure you are getting in good positions but remember this is still for time. 

OPTION 1
3 rounds for time of:

1 minute of L-sit hold on boxes
2 minutes holding a floating wall handstand
500-m row

OPTION 2
3 rounds for time of:

30 seconds support hold on boxes
30 seconds v-sit hold on box
90 seconds holding a tripod hold/ tripod tuck hold or a headstand
500-m row

For videos of modifications check @dotcomscaled on Instagram

Please tell my husband that brussel sprouts have made a comeback. 

Brussels sprouts and Bacon, how can you go wrong :) 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this new programming run contrary to everything CrossFit preached in the past about NOT being a specialist? First we diddled around with strict pull-ups and not much else. Now, we're clearly working on handstands and not much else -- meanwhile those nice, fancy pull-ups everyone got so good at are an afterthought. What's next? Two weeks mastering the hammer curl?

Champions Club Scaling Notes

STIMULUS: Usually static holds workout will be tougher to keep intensity, but I think this one will be a burner! And I think the big thing is the L-sit being from the ground instead of bars or boxes. Believe it or not, I think this variation should help us go for a minute straight. I’ll go into more detail below. You’ll be holding your breath a lot on the l-sit and on the handstand, then breathing heavy on the row. I’d keep the rowing distance to the point where a sprinting pace can be kept. My first glance at this one is keeping this under 15 would produce a pretty good stimulus. But I’m not good at judging rowing, as we usually sub running.

GROUP: I’m excited to read this workout because I think this could be the best version of the L-sit to scale for a group. Top notch people will be able to do the Shannon but a great scale for this is to just to keep the feet on the ground but lift the feet up. And when that gets tired bend the knees a little bit. For really inflexible athletes use plates for the hands. Either way “getting as light on the butt/legs as possible” can make it so the hold goes for a minute straight. At least I think. 
Wall-facing handstand and box handstand are good subs, as well as extended planks. Something you could hopefully break into no more than three or four sets at the start. 
As for the rowing, we just got hit with a ton of snow and ice here in Michigan, so instead of jump ropes or sdhps we might to burpees just for the metabolic response. Usually we’re picky on the technique but we’ll probably let some slide here.

INJURY: For hip injuries a hollow hold could be a good sub for l-sits. Bar hang or plank could be a sub for some shoulder injuries on the handstand. Then pick something you can do that’s tiring that doesn’t hurt for the third thing.

I’M SCALING THIS WELL IF: My handstands are done in at least 3-3:30.

I’M SCALING THIS POORLY IF: the row is the rest station

GENERAL FEAR LEVEL (1=REST DAY, 10=PR-DRIVEN FGB): 8. L-sits without having to as much rest might be a problem to deal with.

GENERAL EMASCULATING LEVEL (1=WHO DOES RING HSPU ANYWAY?, 10=THIS TEENAGE GIRL IS DEADLIFTING MORE THAN ME): 4. Most people probably expect to scale L-sits.

I love this new programming.

Information.

Workouts.

Nutrition.

📚 🥑💪

For the L-Sits, do we have to accumulate 1 minute of L-Sits or is it a running 1 minute clock? 

Pretty curious as to how the Open programming will look this year.  

Scale: hanging knee hold on boxes, benches or dip bar, piked handstand hold or plank.  Globo subs:  row.  If no rower 400m run, 400m run on treadmill with moderate incline, or 2 minutes of a cardio axtivity (burpees, box jumps, du attempts, single unders).  All other moves as Rxed or scaled.   

Note.  There is such a thing as a strict air squat.  It is performed with no arm swing whatsoever (cross your chest with your arms when squatting). Go as deep as ROM allows, stand to full extension, and keep the movement smooth and under control.  This can also be done with pistols to make them "strict" as well.   

Oh wow, this looks delicious!  Gonna have to give this dish a try soon.