In Combatives, Radio

March 31, 2009

Audio Article

This is the 50th episode of CrossFit Radio, which aired at 6pm PDT on March 30th, 2009.

0:00 Intro
3:15 Tony Blauer
57:00 News showing a link between diet soda and obesity

Tony Blauer is more than just a self defense expert. He has pioneered several systems that have re-defined how the industry teaches personal protection. Several weeks ago Neil stumbled onto Tony’s Facebook page where he found a sample of the new 57 page PDR (Personal Defense Readiness) manual. He immediately invited Tony on the show for a fourth time to speak about it.

Some of the topics we discussed were:
S.O.S. (Select Optimum Strategy), Close Quarter Skills, Submission: Theory and Posture, Feign Fear to Draw Attack, Use Choice Speech to Defuse, The Hand is Quicker Than The Eye, Lead With Speed, Hit in “Threes,” Closest Weapon/Closest Target (CWCT), First Strike Theory, and Stun and Run.

1hr 4min 19sec

The next show will be Monday, March 30th, 2009 at 6pm PDT. The interview will be Joe Decker, the Guiness Book of World Record holder for Fittest Man Alive.

Free Download


11 Comments on “CrossFit Radio Episode 50 090330”


wrote …

"The requested URL /free/audio/CFRadio50-090330.mp3 was not found on this server."


wrote …

I am annoyed by the disrespect about science I sometimes hear from the public at large.

It seems to me the study about artificial sweeteners is about trying to determine if consumers are fooling themselves by thinking that an artificially sweetened product is healthier to consume than a regular one. You guys ridiculed the study but I suspect you did so out of your own ignorance.

If it turns out through further study that artificial sweeteners are no better than sugar in relation to metabolic syndrome, wouldn't that be a good thing to know? No wonder there's a statement at the beginning of every show disclaiming any of the views or opinions as being representative of Crossfit :-)

Otherwise, I get a lot of good information out of your show and appreciate it very much.

P.S. just to let you know a little where I'm coming from, I am a 50 year old newbie Crossfitter with a college degree in engineering.


wrote …

I think the issue isn't so much the study, it just that like the red meat study just released it seems to be a purely observational study. (WFS)

It doesn't seem to have eliminated any other contributing factors. If it is purely observational I don't really qualify that as ahereing to the sceintific method in any way. It just another effot to enusre you have secured your funding for the next year by making someone happy with a study.

Is there validity to the point about artificial sweetners and their effect on the insulin response...there could be. But, even that conclusion is up for debate by a number of people, studies and interest groups.


Russell Benedetto wrote …

Amazing interview with Tony, after listening if anyone is truly of the mind to avoid confrontation if possible Tony's way of thinking is truly the best self defense I have heard.......


wrote …

Is there any way to get the material you had on your old website posted again. Like the "Reciprocal Law of Pain" and some of your blog posts? Some of that stuff was cool, and I'd like to have access to it again.


replied to comment from Charles Burnett

"""I think the issue isn't so much the study, it just that like the red meat study just released it seems to be a purely observational study. It just another effot to enusre you have secured your funding for the next year by making someone happy with a study."""

It could be the study itself is kind of lame; you'd have to look deeper into it to make a fair judgment. I suspect it may have been intended as a preliminary look rather than an exhaustive determination. Sometimes it saves valuable research dollars to do the preliminary study first in order to determine if a more in-depth follow on study would be justified.

Either way, as a Crossfitter I think it's a really interesting notion that artificial sweeteners might be causing a metabolic response similar to sugar's due to a physiological inability to distinguish between the two.


wrote …

Any chance I can get you guys to release content a little less frequently for a little while? Before you take my head off, let me explain my request. Last week I started listening to CFR and I started with episode 1. Since then I have been averaging 2-3 episodes per day, every day. The good news is that I am about to start episode 14. The bad news is that in order to catch up I will need to listen to at least 2 episodes every day for at least a month (Ill need 18 days just to catch up to episode 50, and by that time you may have another 18 episodes laid out, another 9 days etc etc!).

Anyways, if you can help out I would appreciate it. If not, then I'm just going to have to ball up and change my 2-3 a days to 3-4 or 4-5 a days.

Love what you guys are doing, keep up the great work!


Ned Ferguson wrote …

Obviously the diet soda/obesity link is true. You always see fat people drinking diet soda. ;)


wrote …

We at CFR are have as many issues with this so-called scientific study as we do with the reporting of it by ABC news.

We like to think that CrossFit holds itself to a higher standard of science and observation. It is laughable to think that the study out of the University of Texas Health Science Center could be classified as "scientific." Neither can we fathom how it could be considered a "finding" in any scientific sense of the word. Yet it was published and reported as such. In reality, it appeared to be nothing more than conjecture.

Generally, we at CFR are against artificial sweeteners. We have little doubt that artificial sweeteners aren't healthful. Here is the thing though: You can't take my last sentence and publish it as a scientific finding or as a "potential link to obesity." Which is exactly what ABC News did with this so-called study out of UTHSC. Even if it is true, (maybe it is) we think it is important to hold the authors of this and ANY "research" to the same high standards that we expect of CrossFit. Can you even imagine Coach being quoted as saying or publishing the following excerpt from their "study?"

"My own theory is that the sweet taste works in the brain to create a conditioned response, and the body responds as it usually does to normal sugar- with insulin, the fat storing hormone. Those circuits in the brain are pretty primitive and ancient, and they can't immediately distinguish chemical fakery- as far as your brain is concerned, sweet means sugar. It's entirely possible that physiologically, you would respond to aspartame in the same way as you would to table sugar. It's only a theory, but it makes sense."

Dude, really??? "chemical fakery???"

We also think it is the responsibility of the agency who reports such studies to thoroughly research and investigate all possible sources. Then, we expect them to report both sides of the story in an unbiased and concise manner. This did not happen here.

It is our opinion that mainstream fitness reporting is generally useless to those seeking real changes in their performance, health and/or lifestyles. It has become more about sensationalism and hype than it ever was about true journalism. We think that the scientists and journalists should go back to doing what they do best and leave the sensationalism and hype to the bastards behind the CFR mics.

Sean - send me your email let me know which articles you want. They are yours for the asking.

Nicholas - Sorry for the pain, brother. But with the quality of info our guests have brought to the show you'll wear those scabs on your ears with pride!


What's up with 51 and 52? Any word when they will be up or were there recording issues again?


wrote …

Russell, thanks so much for the comments.

Sean was your comment to me or for Neil?


Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)