Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
We never made fun of Rhabdo. Kami doesn’t make fun of HIV. Smokey isn’t making fun of burned bears. I don’t know if I could be any clearer.
I’ve got no interest in removing myself from the “stigma of rhabdo”. If educating people causes others, like yourself, to be confused, that’s a price I will gladly pay. Our game plan has always been to win over the smart people first.
I have no choice but to take your word for your claim that you knew about rhabdo ahead of our work
Where did you get the idea that I thought that the military’s implementation and adoption of CrossFit was proof of anything? Why in the world would you put “proof” in quotation marks? Look, here’s where I goofed. I responded to what you posted not what you’d meant to say; I do that a lot. You said, (notice the quotes) “He didn't bother with the cert, because outside of CF it doesn't really hold any creed.” That statement is flat out false. By the way, proof is the exclusive province of mathematics. Science doesn’t involve proof or proving.
Your claim that CrossFit is not revolutionary “since you/it espouses concepts and exercises that have been part of professional and academic S&C curriculum for over 50 years…” is illogical nonsense. We did nothing new just took the same old stuff and combined it in new ways? In this manner no recipe is original if the ingredients are known. No song is original if the same old notes are used. No poem is original if the words contained therein are found in the dictionary.
Your comment about the “relatively uneducated masses” is an insult and coming from a guy who too often fails to create coherent sentences, struggles with simple logic, grammar, and spelling, misuses quotations, and offers NSCA and ACSM membership as scientific credentials it is insufferable. Philip you’re less educated than most of the people posting here and most assuredly less educated than our best educated. (I’m being nice here because my biographer from T-Nation, Chris Shugart, is here)
You say that “the criticisims that many have about CF are that they have not been subject to scientific scrutiny using the rigid standards to which many of the protocols espoused by Epley, Poliqiun, etc have had their training protocols held up to”. First of all, I’ve not seen that criticism anywhere. Second I don’t know of any scientific scrutiny of any fitness program.
You say that Epley and Poliquin are ”willing to let the training programs they espouse be put up to scrutiny both in the labratory and on the field of athletic performance, which may be their particular problem with CF”. Are you implying that I’m not willing to have the scientific validity of CrossFit be tested? I’m not only willing but begging.
The problem is that NSCA and ACSM "members" like you don’t see in language like this,
“Our very public and constant claim is that fitness is best defined as work capacity across broad time and modal domains; that meaningful assertions about a program need to address safety, efficacy, and efficiency with measurable, observable, repeatable data; that constantly varied, high intensity, functional movement delivered in a competitive sporting environment has produced unprecedented work capacity across broad time and modal domains (fitness); that by incorporating a lifestyle, including diet, rest, and workout elements that cause common health and fitness metrics to move simultaneously from pathological, past “normal”, to “fit” values we introduce a third axis, age, that turns our two dimensional work capacity area under the curve to a three dimensional solid whose volume defines both health and fitness (making health a logical facet of fitness); that all of this needs to be delivered publicly where methods, results, and criticisms, are transparent and, finally, that iterations of this effort have fed an open source community where experimentation will demonstrate best practices and ultimately advance the art and science of human performance .”
any testable propositions, scientific assertions – hypothesis or theories. They don’t recognize a revolutionary approach to fitness and a revolutionary quantifiable model of fitness and health that for the first time integrates both. They don’t see an intriguing new social construct for advancing human performance threatening to outpace and replace moribund commercial and academic approaches. They’re not willing to respond to a dialog that would be made meaningful by accepting our call for evidence-based fitness.
They don’t see data in performance scores when they’re posted as workout results or where people are having fun.
What they offer in response is mindless screed like you and T-Nation’s readers offer. Notice, friends, how not one poster at T-Nation even peripherally offers a criticism of CrossFit’s fundamental assertions. Not one.
There’s no evidence to suggest that my friend and biographer, Chris Shugart, or ANY of the posters have learned what it is that CrossFit claims.
How can you take my challenge of reviewing CrossFit and every other fitness program by examining effect, efficiency, and safety with measurable, observable, repeatable data, and then imply our unwillingness to engage in scientific inquiry?
Your claim that CrossFit has not been put to scrutiny on the field of athletic performance is an insult to the professional, Olympic, collegiate, and amateur champions that grace these very pages and workout with our affiliates around the world. It also speaks to my contention that you know very little about CrossFit.
The best you could do with any of this was what you offered here? Philip, you’re in way over your head.
Again, read more, post less.
Chris Shugart, I’m trying to be nicer. I really am.