View Single Post
Old 06-09-2011, 05:58 PM   #46
Brian Pressman
Member Brian Pressman is offline
 
Brian Pressman's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Honolulu  HI
Posts: 48
Re: Crossfit's definition of health

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Lantz View Post
Note Glassman's use of the word "minimize" in your original post -

Mr. Glassman claims that any "disease, illness, or injury will manifest itself as reduced work capacity...therefore, the only way to sustain the highest levels of fitness is to avoid, or at least minimize, disease, illness, and injury."

He has commented that any program that's 100% safe is also by definition not effective.

So I look at it as "optimizing time lost to injury" which I think CF does however as you said we don't have the data.

I've also often wondered where is the optimum point of balance between safety and effectiveness.

One thing that made perfect sense to me when I read the article "What is fitness ?" is that too much of any one thing changes it from good to bad.

For example, running 400 meters repeats is probably far less stressful on your body than simply racking up the miles jogging as well as more beneficial (and less time consuming)
But doesn't crossfit need to provide some (any) injury data to compete the statement "Crossfit is better for your health than x" x could be running, walking, what ever. Again, since injury (or decrease longevity) results in downtown and thus, less work preformed. Keeping this question as narrow as possible.
  Reply With Quote