Crossfit & the CF

[The_Falcon]

I like the names, if  a workout has a name (or nickname like fight gone bad, filthy 50s) you damn well know your about to experience a whole new level of suck.  It also helps me to remember WOD's (the prescription) if you are stuck for a workout.

On the point of the "preachiness" of CrossFit disciples, I have found the same, stubborness/pushiness, from people who follow old school running/BB programs too (don't get me started about the folks on T-Nation).  Now I admit I do get preachy sometimes, but thats mostly when people (particularly my friends) dismiss what I am doing as a waste of time, CF is junk etc.  But will they give the program a shot? Nope.  They have no need to.  One suggested to me all I need to do was lift heavy weights once in awhile, do some circuit training, and a bit of running, and I would be good  ???:brickwall:

 

[jhohertz]

I think the main problem with CF is Glassman himself. He's the anti-science, knows the One True Way, guy who seems to be the biggest problem people have with CF. That being said CF people are a lot like the HIT Jedi's of the 90s in their strict allegiance and loyalty to one training methodology. In a way the rabid CF'ers (like the HITers of the 90s) are treating one training methodology as religious gospel as opposed to simply one way to get the job done. And as with all religious debates they polarize individuals and nobody can ever move forward.

That being said, the HERO workouts. Does anybody know if they get permission from the families to use the names of these soldiers? I know one is based on a guy who did the workout his name is attached to but I see no such references for most. If they are not getting permission than they are exploiting dead soldiers in order to create an image from which to sell the CF image. How would a spouse feel to hear people talking about doing their husband? Or for a child to see his father (or mother. But let's face it the casualties are rather male heavy) sacrifice is simply used as a marketing gimmick. I personally do not want to see my name attached to a high-intensity circuit used by any company.

That being said, perhaps they do get permission. In which case, carry on. But if they don't, that's pretty much exploiting dead soldiers as far as I can tell.

I like the names, if  a workout has a name (or nickname like fight gone bad, filthy 50s) you damn well know your about to experience a whole new level of suck.  It also helps me to remember WOD's (the prescription) if you are stuck for a workout.

On the point of the "preachiness" of CrossFit disciples, I have found the same, stubborness/pushiness, from people who follow old school running/BB programs too (don't get me started about the folks on T-Nation).  Now I admit I do get preachy sometimes, but thats mostly when people (particularly my friends) dismiss what I am doing as a waste of time, CF is junk etc.  But will they give the program a shot? Nope.  They have no need to.  One suggested to me all I need to do was lift heavy weights once in awhile, do some circuit training, and a bit of running, and I would be good  ???:brickwall:

 

[buzgo]

Weren't they taken to court because they were using images of SF soldiers etc without permission - giving the impression that they were officially endorsing CrossFit?

Some of the posts when Glassman is defending the 'brand' are pretty entertaining/disturbing.

I still subscribe to the overall concept, its way better than standing in front of the mirror doing endless barbell curls.

 

[Soldier1stTradesman2nd]

Doing endless barbell curls or any other exercise for that matter is an example where "common" training philosophy has gone awry - ie. more is better, if 5 sets of 10 is good, 20 sets of 15 must be better. One could go overboard with "endless" pull-ups or "endless" squats with the same negligible results. The difference with CrossFit/circuit training and a good number of traditional weight-bearing exercises is multi-joint vs single-joint. Not too many CrossFit exercises (if any) are single-joint. Thus proponents applaud the fact that is is more "functional" and real-life applicable (beneficial to athletes, soldiers, LE pers etc). I for one could be considered a HIT proponent, not only because high-intensity, heavy weight, short duration and low-volume, has worked for me a LOT better than high-volume ever did, but also because of the "Lets stop and think about what exercise science really is and why we exercise a certain way" attitude that HIT "Jedis" came out with. Very refreshing after reading about Weider's steroid freaks who could work out 3-4 hours a day for 6 days in a row, and realise that unless one was taking copious amounts of illegal and harmful drugs, there would be no chance in hell to achieve the same results.
Bottom line is, as I have said before, critical thinking MUST occur for ANY exercise protocol to be considered viable or sound. Anything less, is purely gut feel and subjectivism. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that exercise science should be relegated to the level of religion-like debate. We should not be dealing with belief or faith when it comes to the processes of the human body as it relates to stress physiology. The human body is fairly well studied, and while the debate over the "best" exercise program will likely rage on till all eternity (mainly because of the ease of being able to fall back on faith and belief over hard study and rational thought), any trainee will have to face undeniable facts once initial adaptation, mucle memory and form have settled in.
One should be passionate about good health and top fitness (sadly we see the results of the opposite too often), and healthy debating should be encouraged. Being a proponent of a certain philosophy, however, HAS to be defendable from a rational, factual and scientific point (adhering to strict metaphysical realities). This goes for CrossFit as well. And herein lies the caution - just because thousands of people are "followers" of a certain exercise regime, may not necessarily mean that it works for most. Unless you are able to track the progress of every single practitioner over time to see progress and those that drop out, anecdotal evidence is not good enough (this applies BTW to ANY philosophy - just because hundreds of thousands believed the earth was flat did not magically make it so, likewise with the belief of the sun spinning around earth etc etc).

 

[jhohertz]

Kinesiology is the scientific study of exercise. Although for years it was inappropriately named "Physical Education" and the application of science to exercise is a rather new topic. Particularly anaerobic exercise (it's hard to get rats to lift weights, as the joke goes). Disclaimer: Graduated with a degree in Kine. That being said the popular books being sold by "trainers" usually have little do with the actual science underlying exercise ("get a sixpack in 2 seconds a day! Lose 14 pounds in 3 hours!").

Although the website leaves A LOT to be desired this article is a good one about all the hype surrounding various training methodologies. The authour was a huge proponent of CrossFit before he and Glassman had a huge falling out and he was subsequently banned from the CrossFit message board. The authour is held in high regard by a lot of people (I know little about him but article was pretty good).

Nautilus, Crossfit, and "HiHi"
by Dan John
http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/nautilus_crossfit_and_hihi&cr=

Doing endless barbell curls or any other exercise for that matter is an example where "common" training philosophy has gone awry - ie. more is better, if 5 sets of 10 is good, 20 sets of 15 must be better. One could go overboard with "endless" pull-ups or "endless" squats with the same negligible results. The difference with CrossFit/circuit training and a good number of traditional weight-bearing exercises is multi-joint vs single-joint. Not too many CrossFit exercises (if any) are single-joint. Thus proponents applaud the fact that is is more "functional" and real-life applicable (beneficial to athletes, soldiers, LE pers etc). I for one could be considered a HIT proponent, not only because high-intensity, heavy weight, short duration and low-volume, has worked for me a LOT better than high-volume ever did, but also because of the "Lets stop and think about what exercise science really is and why we exercise a certain way" attitude that HIT "Jedis" came out with. Very refreshing after reading about Weider's steroid freaks who could work out 3-4 hours a day for 6 days in a row, and realise that unless one was taking copious amounts of illegal and harmful drugs, there would be no chance in hell to achieve the same results.
Bottom line is, as I have said before, critical thinking MUST occur for ANY exercise protocol to be considered viable or sound. Anything less, is purely gut feel and subjectivism. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that exercise science should be relegated to the level of religion-like debate. We should not be dealing with belief or faith when it comes to the processes of the human body as it relates to stress physiology. The human body is fairly well studied, and while the debate over the "best" exercise program will likely rage on till all eternity (mainly because of the ease of being able to fall back on faith and belief over hard study and rational thought), any trainee will have to face undeniable facts once initial adaptation, mucle memory and form have settled in.
One should be passionate about good health and top fitness (sadly we see the results of the opposite too often), and healthy debating should be encouraged. Being a proponent of a certain philosophy, however, HAS to be defendable from a rational, factual and scientific point (adhering to strict metaphysical realities). This goes for CrossFit as well. And herein lies the caution - just because thousands of people are "followers" of a certain exercise regime, may not necessarily mean that it works for most. Unless you are able to track the progress of every single practitioner over time to see progress and those that drop out, anecdotal evidence is not good enough (this applies BTW to ANY philosophy - just because hundreds of thousands believed the earth was flat did not magically make it so, likewise with the belief of the sun spinning around earth etc etc).

 

[meni0n]

What`s ironic is that Glossman doesn`t do CF himself. He looks fat and out of shape. I did CF for a year but now am combining different workouts to suit my needs, such as fatalfitness, cfendurance and cf.

 

[jhohertz]

He claims it's because of an injury. But I saw some pics of war vets with amputations (some bilateral arm and leg) who didn't let that stop them.

Another good one which I have to post elsewhere is http://www.militaryathlete.com/ . The guy from Mountain Athlete is behind it. He started off big into CrossFit but then realized the workouts were too short, the timed nature of the workouts wasn't that beneficial, etc. It's a 5 on/2 off program.

What`s ironic is that Glossman doesn`t do CF himself. He looks fat and out of shape. I did CF for a year but now am combining different workouts to suit my needs, such as fatalfitness, cfendurance and cf.

 

[Soldier1stTradesman2nd]

God article. Say what he may about Arthur Jones and the marketing hype surrounding Nautilus, the HIT methodology of today is quite different from even Mike Mentzer's take on the subject (Mind and Body II). He for one went to some crazy extremes with low-volume, that did not work for me at all. Dr Ellington Darden is mentioned, but again, HIT has gone through an evolution even with him. The most current HIT methodology looks more like HiHi than anything else. If HIT is considered machine-centric, it is really only because, in being able to achieve momentary muscular failure to trigger a growth response, one needs a spotter or the ability to safely lower the weights.
Personally, I have found that with the proper application of HIT principles, I have been able to increase weight, reps or both nearly every single time I have gone to the gym, and consistently so for far longer than just six weeks. And having done CrossFit sessions as well, I have not found it hard to achieve the posted results/rep ranges either.
But here I agree with the author - everything works, as long as the basic principles are adhered to. Even in HIT one can stagnate and become adapted or overtrained thus failing to realise further results after the average six weeks. By adjusting the key variables (intensity, volume and frequency) progress should be steady for a long time. Most gym types are often too gung-ho about training and only feel progress if they are in the gym all the time. A lot of people pay lip service to rest. Result: a certain regime works for a while and the tapers off - with most people not understanding why this is.
I can and I have bemoaned my genetics (as I am sure alot of others have as well), but while I have a hard time (no matter how I train) gaining weight, leg press results, for example, have gone from 270 lbs to nearly 800 lbs for 15 reps average. By going to momentary muscular failure, I am certain I have sent a signal of some kind to the system to get stronger. I guess in CrossFit the benchmark is time or rounds completed.

 

[jhohertz]

I never meant to across as an HIT basher, nor even a CF basher but I think I may have. I'm also not really seeing a difference between rabid CF supporters and HIT supporters. However the claim that science says 1 set is all you need goes against what is stated in my Ex Phys textbook: "A consensus of the literature suggests that multiple sets of weight lifting is required to provide maximal strength gains for all individuals other than untrained, beginning weight trainers.". (Exercise Physiology: Theory and Applications to Fitness and Performance, Sixth Edition, Scott K. Powers & Edward T Howley).  That being said at least HIT proponents don't seem to say they're better than science in near the same way Glassman distorts, warps, and rails against it.

Seriously though, I didn't mean to attack your say of training. Individual differences. Do what works for you. My main issue is the Hero workouts and whether or not Glassman gets permission to use the names and pictures of dead soldiers to perpetuate the image of CrossFit through implied endorsement by various service members. So far there may be an lawsuit but no reference was given. THAT, I do take offence to.

God article. Say what he may about Arthur Jones and the marketing hype surrounding Nautilus, the HIT methodology of today is quite different from even Mike Mentzer's take on the subject (Mind and Body II). He for one went to some crazy extremes with low-volume, that did not work for me at all. Dr Ellington Darden is mentioned, but again, HIT has gone through an evolution even with him. The most current HIT methodology looks more like HiHi than anything else. If HIT is considered machine-centric, it is really only because, in being able to achieve momentary muscular failure to trigger a growth response, one needs a spotter or the ability to safely lower the weights.
Personally, I have found that with the proper application of HIT principles, I have been able to increase weight, reps or both nearly every single time I have gone to the gym, and consistently so for far longer than just six weeks. And having done CrossFit sessions as well, I have not found it hard to achieve the posted results/rep ranges either.
But here I agree with the author - everything works, as long as the basic principles are adhered to. Even in HIT one can stagnate and become adapted or overtrained thus failing to realise further results after the average six weeks. By adjusting the key variables (intensity, volume and frequency) progress should be steady for a long time. Most gym types are often too gung-ho about training and only feel progress if they are in the gym all the time. A lot of people pay lip service to rest. Result: a certain regime works for a while and the tapers off - with most people not understanding why this is.
I can and I have bemoaned my genetics (as I am sure alot of others have as well), but while I have a hard time (no matter how I train) gaining weight, leg press results, for example, have gone from 270 lbs to nearly 800 lbs for 15 reps average. By going to momentary muscular failure, I am certain I have sent a signal of some kind to the system to get stronger. I guess in CrossFit the benchmark is time or rounds completed.

 

[Soldier1stTradesman2nd]

Ack. Didn't meant to come across as having taken any offence to your posting and the link to the article. A good, albeit short, take on the "extremes I guess." HIT at one point in time was almost the antithesis to Weider and high-volume, ie if "more is better" doesn't work, then "least is better" must. Brian D. Johnston and others have noted this way of thinking was just as fly-by-the-seats and irrational as the "more is better camp." What modern HIT proponents have tried to see is where the sweet spot for hypertrophy lies (even with advanced, experienced lifters (eg. Dorian Yates)). The "prescribed is best" philosophy is what drew me into reading more about HIT, and I have been an avid studier of the evolution of this mindset. All I am saying is that this mindset could (and maybe should) be applied to other exercise regimes, for the practioner to realise meaningful results for a long time.
I agree with the quote from the Ex Phys book, while it is quite broad in scope and could be miscontrued for "more is better" - where is the tipping point of diminishing returns?. However, the latest evolutions in HIT have gone away from the Heavy Duty extremes (1 set of one exercise in 1 week for advanced llifters) (Mike Mentzer applying the "least is best" mentality to the max). Dr. Ellington Darden and others recommend (and explaining why) to carry out full-body sessions while sticking to the key principles of the HIT rationale). If one looks at a typical full-body session, it is clear that a particular muscle group is in fact stimulated through multiple sets. Ie:
1 set - leg curl
1 set - leg extension
1 set - leg press
1 set - calf raises
etc etc fo the upper body
Bottom line - the HIT is 1 set only centric is too simplistic and good very easily be mocked as alazy man's workout. Further study and proper application demonstrates anything but.
"Why" is just if not more important than "what."
100% agreement with the issue of CrossFit names and endorsment issues.

 

[Fusaki]

Seriously though, I didn't mean to attack your say of training. Individual differences. Do what works for you. My main issue is the Hero workouts and whether or not Glassman gets permission to use the names and pictures of dead soldiers to perpetuate the image of CrossFit through implied endorsement by various service members. So far there may be an lawsuit but no reference was given. THAT, I do take offence to.

From the Crossfit website:

"Murph"

For time:
1 mile Run
100 Pull-ups
200 Push-ups
300 Squats
1 mile Run

In memory of Navy Lieutenant Michael Murphy, 29, of Patchogue, N.Y., who was killed in Afghanistan June 28th, 2005.

This workout was one of Mike's favorites and he'd named it "Body Armor". From here on it will be referred to as "Murph" in honor of the focused warrior and great American who wanted nothing more in life than to serve this great country and the beautiful people who make it what it is.

Partition the pull-ups, push-ups, and squats as needed. Start and finish with a mile run. If you've got a twenty pound vest or body armor, wear it.

I really don't think his family would overhear a crossfitter talk about "doing Murph" and be insulted by it. If I was killed in combat as one who was known to be dedicated to physical fitness I think my family would appreciate me being remembered in this way.

While it is possible that Glassman trying to be a grave robber by capitalizing on the deaths of soldiers, I don't see this as very likely for a couple reasons:

-Crossfit is an "open source" style program with the development of exercises coming from the bottom just as much as from the top.  A deliberate attempt to manipulate people at the expense of a fallen soldier would require a conspiracy that reaches down to the lowest level of casual crossfitter.  It's possible that when my unit deploys on TF 1-10 someone will end up with a  workout named after him.  The workout will start as platoon PT and maybe one day it'll catch on and end up as a crossfit.com WOD. This is how crossfit works, and you can rest assured that our intentions are genuine.

-Crossfit has a HUGE military following.  IMHO army guys have some of the best bullshit detectors around.  If the intent of naming exercises after fallen soldiers was not for the sake of rememberance and inspiration, I think that most soldiers would detest Glassman as the lowest scum to walk the planet.  The reality of the situation is quite the opposite.  While some may call Glassman an egotistical, close minded, and rabid fanatic I have never heard of him referred to as one who was out to maliciously exploit us. I think that if soldiers were being done wrong, then soldiers wouldn't like it so much.

biosci, I really don't think it is the way you're saying it is.

 

[jhohertz]

It's "open source" because there is nothing new in it. If he tried to claim he invented any of it people would jump all over him. I haven't seen any open source license on any of the material such as Creative Commons or Gnu FDL. But then again in a different life I worked in IT using various open-source tools and met many open-source pioneers incl. Linus Torvalds. So I find the term thrown around a little bit too much.

A huge following means little or else McDonalds would be the best restaurant in the world. CrossFit is a business and yes, I believe Glassman likes to promote the idea that people in the army do nothing but CrossFit and that's it.

There may be no outcry yet. But it does leave a bad taste in my mouth that he isn't (if he isn't) getting permission to use these soldiers (and yes, he is using them). I knew about the Murph one, it's different.

So it's pretty much an unknown as to whether or not he gets permission then?

From the Crossfit website:

I really don't think his family would overhear a crossfitter talk about "doing Murph" and be insulted by it. If I was killed in combat as one who was known to be dedicated to physical fitness I think my family would appreciate me being remembered in this way.

While it is possible that Glassman trying to be a grave robber by capitalizing on the deaths of soldiers, I don't see this as very likely for a couple reasons:

-Crossfit is an "open source" style program with the development of exercises coming from the bottom just as much as from the top.  A deliberate attempt to manipulate people at the expense of a fallen soldier would require a conspiracy that reaches down to the lowest level of casual crossfitter.  It's possible that when my unit deploys on TF 1-10 someone will end up with a  workout named after him.  The workout will start as platoon PT and maybe one day it'll catch on and end up as a crossfit.com WOD. This is how crossfit works, and you can rest assured that our intentions are genuine.

-Crossfit has a HUGE military following.  IMHO army guys have some of the best bullshit detectors around.  If the intent of naming exercises after fallen soldiers was not for the sake of rememberance and inspiration, I think that most soldiers would detest Glassman as the lowest scum to walk the planet.  The reality of the situation is quite the opposite.  While some may call Glassman an egotistical, close minded, and rabid fanatic I have never heard of him referred to as one who was out to maliciously exploit us. I think that if soldiers were being done wrong, then soldiers wouldn't like it so much.

biosci, I really don't think it is the way you're saying it is.

 

[MJP]

There may be no outcry yet. But it does leave a bad taste in my mouth that he isn't (if he isn't) getting permission to use these soldiers (and yes, he is using them). I knew about the Murph one, it's different.

So it's pretty much an unknown as to whether or not he gets permission then?

No Outcry yet?  The work-outs have been around for quite some time.  I agree with Wonderbread that army/LEO people are good BS detectors.  If he was misusing or using the images and names without some sort of permission there would be a plethora of forum postings and/or news articles on the subject.  The only reference I can come up with for Crossfit being sued was for some US navy guy that got Rhabo after a work out.  Even then Crossfit itself wasn't named in the lawsuit just the trainer.  IIRC from the articles on the whole thing Glassman testified for the plaintiff.

If it is such a huge concern for you, email Crossfit yourself and see what they have to say? 

 

[Fusaki]

It's "open source" because there is nothing new in it. If he tried to claim he invented any of it people would jump all over him. I haven't seen any open source license on any of the material such as Creative Commons or Gnu FDL. But then again in a different life I worked in IT using various open-source tools and met many open-source pioneers incl. Linus Torvalds. So I find the term thrown around a little bit too much.

Maybe crossfit doesn't fit the definition of open source like linux does, but thats not the point I'm trying to make here anyways.

My point is that at least some of the time the push to name a Crossfit workout after an individual killed in combat is started by those who knew him.  I do not believe Glassman is picking names of KIA out of the news and tagging them to workouts.  I'm pretty sure that the actual naming of the workouts is done at a much lower level, probably at the level of individual crossfit gyms and military sub-units.

I don't have hard evidence of specific cases for Hero workouts, but this idea is central to the "Crossfit philosophy".

A huge following means little or else McDonalds would be the best restaurant in the world. CrossFit is a business and yes, I believe Glassman likes to promote the idea that people in the army do nothing but CrossFit and that's it.

Again, not the point I'm trying to make.

Crossfit's popularity in the military that leads me to believe that few in the military are insulted by Crossfit's WOD names.

 

[jhohertz]

Can't be bothered. Just wondering if anyone here knew the answer and to get the CF thread going in a non-fanboy direction. 

I failed on both counts. I'll just leave it be.

No Outcry yet?  The work-outs have been around for quite some time.  I agree with Wonderbread that army/LEO people are good BS detectors.  If he was misusing or using the images and names without some sort of permission there would be a plethora of forum postings and/or news articles on the subject.  The only reference I can come up with for Crossfit being sued was for some US navy guy that got Rhabo after a work out.  Even then Crossfit itself wasn't named in the lawsuit just the trainer.  IIRC from the articles on the whole thing Glassman testified for the plaintiff.

If it is such a huge concern for you, email Crossfit yourself and see what they have to say?

 

[MJP]

Fine stomp away mad because no one will do your work for you.  You are the only one making a mountain out of an molehill.  Until you derailed the thread based on the "naming of some WODs", yours and other posts were very interesting to read.  Discerning points of view are welcome, hell encouraged but don't get mad and take your toys away because we have opposing views and choose to defend something.

 

[jhohertz]

I'm not stomping away mad I just don't want this thread to go in the direction it appears to be going. It was something that was bugging me and so I thought I'd throw it out there. I'm not really sure where the "don't get mad" stuff is coming from. If I appeared mad I'm sorry, I was just indifferent and not wanting to put any more energy into the thread in the direction it was going. To show there's no hard feelings  :cheers:

Fine stomp away mad because no one will do your work for you.  You are the only one making a mountain out of an molehill.  Until you derailed the thread based on the "naming of some WODs", yours and other posts were very interesting to read.  Discerning points of view are welcome, hell encouraged but don't get mad and take your toys away because we have opposing views and choose to defend something.

 

[MJP]

Cool cool..... It was the impresssion I got, and we know how great the internet is for actually reading what people mean.  No worries.  I just like the fvein of the thread so far.  I like Crossfit, and use it as my main source of workouts (mostly as it is fast and for the most part easy).  But like anyone that is serious about staying shape I like to look at different ideas and see how they stack up with what I am doing.  Koolaid come in all flavours and I like to mix mine up to get the best results.

 

[Soldier1stTradesman2nd]

Easy?! - since when is any productive workout supposed to be easy? 

Oh - no need for complex equipment or spotters - very true. Still, the muscle-up and thrusters, for example, are anything but easy even just from a form aspect.

I have found that the CrossFit sessions are great for muscular endurance improvement (upping the lactic acid threshold) but swing very quickly into the aerobic side of the house. Not too great for hypertrophy of the fast twitch muscles that operate in the anaerobic level.

 

[MJP]

Easy in terms of general life, I am fairly busy with school, kids and all their associated activities.  Definatly not easy in terms of work-out.  If I come away not tired then I obviously didn't use the right intensity.