Is Crossfit right about fitness?

[Josh Briggs]

Originally Posted by Katherine Derbyshire

Perhaps "doesn't drop sandbags" is part of a working definition of athleticism?

Exactly.

However...

I just wanted to say: you do realize that Josh's poor showing on the sandbag run wasn't really due to a lack of athleticism but simply a mistake and poor handling of the sandbag.

Yes, I do realize that. **** happens in competition (google "sara renner norwegian coach" for an example)-- sometimes you get "lucky" sometimes not so much. Josh got a bit unfairly singled out by my example. However, his experience (and his own discussion of his strengths and weaknesses) does serve to illustrate the difference between work capacity and athleticism / Siff's fitness.

It *is* potentially part of a definition of coordination and balance, both of which are included in Crossfit's definition of fitness.

I know. "Learn and play new sports," which I referred to above is also in the original definition. The original definition was, and is, quite good. However, I believe many folks who enjoy the crossfit training methodology have begun to confuse increased work capacity with increased fitness.

As an aside, look up "Brian Mckeever" for an example of elite fitness. No, his work capacity ABTAMD won't be as broad as some of you might aspire to, but his capacity to "cope with the demands of a specific task efficiently and safely" is outstanding-- *in spite of* being legally blind.

[Bryan Kemper]

To continue to beat a dieing horse, think of the spectrum of "elite" athletes from a scrawny 2 hr marathon champion that would have problems with the "pink" dumbbells vs a powerlifter lifting massive weight but can't run at all. Both are considered very good at what they have devoted their specialty training efforts, but not very good at what they don't train.

I like to be able to do most things, most of the time. Not world class at something, but able to pick up and do a half-marathon at will one weekend, then compete in a powerlift meet the next weekend. I might not win either, but I don't mind having the ability to perform on both power spectra, if desired.

Crossfit is right for me. Bottom line.

[Mike Paul]

Hi - been following this thread without really saying anything. I wanted to ask a question re Siff's definition and maybe what Alex was saying about a unifying element.

In general terms, fitness may be defined as the ability to cope with the demands of a specific task efficiently and safely. Preparedness is the ability to express fitness at any given instant.

It maybe semantics but Siff talks about "a specific task". Would the unifying element be to talk about all round fitness being defined as the ability to cope with the demands of a range of varied (perhaps also unknowable) tasks efficiently and safely.

Josh - I am not sure how you get to athleticism from Siff's definition. I may have missed something basic. Can you clarify? Do basically agree with what you are saying though.

Mauricio - I agree with the short selling on gymnastics. I think what you say about understanding the inherent risks of doing flips etc, whilst I agree is part of it, is a slippery slope because this is effectively what the conventional gyms say about free weights - it's a health and safety risk. It's also economically less viable because of the facilities and manpower required. There are also far fewer trainers out there capable of coaching a reasonable level of gymanastics. Basically for a variety of reasons gymnastics is harder to train.

I also agree with the comment that thinks work capacity is getting confused with fitness and because of this people are reluctant to work on balance/agility/coordination/accuracy because they don't get gassed and consequently think they are not getting fitter. Interestingly Ingemar Stenmark and the other Norwegian olympic skiers placed a heavy emphasis on elements of gymnastics training because of the ability it gave them to control their bodies when pushing their limits in competition e.g. improving their ability to pull themselves back from an out of control situation.

At the end of the day - people will train for what they know they are going to handle - and even then they don't always do all the stuff they should - but also what they like doing. Crossfit works for me because it increases my ability to handle tasks I already have some proficiency in - cycling, running, swimming, squash - and more than anything else I enjoy doing it.

[Katherine Derbyshire]

Originally Posted by Mike Paul

I also agree with the comment that thinks work capacity is getting confused with fitness and because of this people are reluctant to work on balance/agility/coordination/accuracy because they don't get gassed and consequently think they are not getting fitter. Interestingly Ingemar Stenmark and the other Norwegian olympic skiers placed a heavy emphasis on elements of gymnastics training because of the ability it gave them to control their bodies when pushing their limits in competition e.g. improving their ability to pull themselves back from an out of control situation.

I think that's a valid criticism, and can be tied directly to the emphasis on strength that we've seen at the Crossfit Games and in the various strength-biased hybrids out there. You get what you measure, and if work capacity is what defines an "elite Crossfitter" you'll see people doing lots of strength training and not very much ring work or tumbling.

Katherine

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

Katherine,

The first hybrid that I know of is Gant's and include front and back levers and tumbingly.

[Mauricio Leal]

CF Games event suggestion: freestanding handstand max time. Fun, competitive, easy to judge. Those who have the longest handstands are almost invariably the strongest at any handstand related work.

[S.S.]

Originally Posted by Mauricio Leal

CF Games event suggestion: freestanding handstand max time. Fun, competitive, easy to judge. Those who have the longest handstands are almost invariably the strongest at any handstand related work.

I suspect the 2010 Games are going to be more focused on gymnastics than previous years, given the videos that have been posted on the site lately and the recent WODs. This will likely cause some "upsets."

[Drew Cloutier]

Originally Posted by Bryan Kemper

Drew: I calculated your BMI based on your sig line using: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi_scri...ubmit_e=Submit
(wfs)

Cut and Paste directly from results:

Your Body Mass Index

The Height you entered is 5 feet, 9 inches. The Weight you entered is 222 pounds.

Your Calculated BMI is: 32.8

BMI Categories:

Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
Overweight = 25-29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

Based on your sig line, you look like you are doing quite well...strong lifts, assumedly good fitness, but based on the BS nature of the BMI would be considered obese. I am still considered overweight at 6'0", 200 lbs and feel like I am in the very best shape of my life at 40.

bottom line: there needs to be a better measure than BMI

God yes I know this already, but as mentioned the BMI is ****TY for muscular people, and I think people in general tend to be either to fat or to scrawny, I know I could never live by the BMI.

thank god our military doesn't go by it.
I know i'm obese with a 36" waist lol

The opposite, the superfit guy who is athletically inept-- can't catch a ball, can't stand on feet, can't stay on his bike-- is just the buffed out bodybuilder wearing different clothes: looks good in the gym, but not very useful.

You must not know any true bodybuilders, because i've NEVER heard of a real bodybuilder (aka not some schmuck who follows the latest FLEX magazine workout by ex Mr. Olympia dorian yates) they are usually all quite athletic, and many come from team sports or martial arts backgrounds, hell Phil Heath can still dunk at 5'9 and 240lbs and he's a top 5 Mr. Olympia finisher, Ronnie Coleman got a full ride scholarship for football, etc. This is just a dumb stereotype people have because they think big guys can't do anything.