What is considered fit?

[Alex Europa]

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrison

Fit in the broadest sense is often defined as the ability to perform desired tasks well. So "fitness" would be different for everyone. What a shot putter would define as fit would be different from a boxer.

This line if thinking is the problem with mainstream "fitness," and all of your beloved S&C organizations. Fitness is defined as competency in all 10 components of fitness, which has been found over time to translate to excellent overall health (in other words, find me a top-tier CrossFitter that has any marker of health that is considered unhealthy or pathological - I think you'll be hard pressed to find even one). Unless you can provide a different definition or set of standards that has shown itself to be more effective in simultaneously improving the performance AND health of athletes, then arguing this point is nonsensical. The problem with your statement is that fitness isn't defined by an individual, but instead has a relatively clear definition (I say relatively because "What is competency?" - the OP's original question - is still open ended). A shot putter's definition of fitness would almost certainly leave health to the wayside on the path towards a longer throw. If his triglycerides are through the roof because he eats junk food to maintain weight, is he still fit because he throws an American Record? What about a World Record? I argue no on both accounts. His performance is without question incredible, but this doesn't provide latitude within the realms of "fitness." If the definition of fitness is left up to individual athletes, then we'll continue to have non-competitive powerlifters that can't walk up steps without getting winded and LSD runners that can't help you move a couch. It is perfectly acceptable for an athlete to compete in a specific sport, but as trainers, we would be negligent to tell them that they are "fit" merely because they excel at a particular discipline.

You'll argue to the contrary, and I truly don't care...1000+ posts and you still don't get it. I won't respond to your posts, or get into a bickering match with you, I don't have the time or energy for that. I just wanted to call BS on your post. Have a fantastic weekend. EDIT: To everyone else, I would love to delve into this further without the desire to bang myself in the head with a mallet every time I log on...so let's chat it up.

- Alex

[Alex Europa]

Originally Posted by John Alston

Fitness, or "fit" is meaningless without regard to a task or objective. Like PG said.
Fit for what task?
Similar with functional - functional for what? for what function?

John, in the broadest sense of the term, fitness is about the task of life. Any other discussion isn't talking about fitness but sport specific readiness. Some sports require more "fit" athletes than others (i.e.: decathlon vs. powerlifting). The powerlifter isn't a lesser athlete, but that DOES NOT make him fit.

EDIT: Nor does being a decathlete automatically make an individual fit...but I would argue that they are closer than a competitive powerlifter/o-lifter/marathon runner.

- Alex

[Shawn Casey]

Originally Posted by John Alston

Marathoner's training - functional for running great distances. Not much else.
Powerlifter's training - functional for heavy lifting; not so much for running far.

Muscling up - not functional for running great distance. Add "for pulling yourself up things" to the end of your sentence and I'll agree.

I'm using functional in more of an 'everybody' sense. Everybody picks up there groceries and everyone has to pic up something heavy and move it sooner or later if they're capable.

You're use more of an athetic point of view; I always thought of functional as handling what everyday normal life gives you. Shoveling, climbing on the roof to get the frisbee, gardening. That stuff.

[Sam Ser]

Originally Posted by Alex Europa

Fitness is defined as competency in all 10 components of fitness, which has been found over time to translate to excellent overall health...
Fitness isn't defined by an individual, but instead has a relatively clear definition. (I say relatively because "What is competency?" - the OP's original question - is still open ended.)

thank you for clarifying that "fitness" is a measure of wellness, while "competency" is a measure of ability to perform a specific task. as you point out, competency in one, or even a few tasks is no guaranee of fitness, while fitness is accompanied by at least a certain level of competency in a broad range of tasks.

with that cleared up, the original poster is asking what level of competency in WODs is required to be considered "good" and then "elite" at crossfit?

of course, that question has been answered many times. the seattle "levels," comparisons of times on logsitall and other sites, etc. all provide good measures of performance.

[John Alston]

Originally Posted by Alex Europa

John, in the broadest sense of the term, fitness is about the task of life. Any other discussion isn't talking about fitness but sport specific readiness. Some sports require more "fit" athletes than others (i.e.: decathlon vs. powerlifting). The powerlifter isn't a lesser athlete, but that DOES NOT make him fit.

"The task of life." Wtf is that but a series of tasks, each selection unique to each individual.
My life, besides elective exercise, requires me to be fit enough to sit on my *** most of the day at a computer, walk about 300yrds in a commute, and a couple other things. It's awesome. I am happy that my survival doesn't depend on muscling up.
I think the "broad sense of fitness" is silly and biased toward your gpp love. Good for you. It's poor logic though. It's an attempt to match athleticism and health, when we should all know pursuit of high level athletic success is not the best route for long term health. This crap is all elective. My C&J / your "Fran practice" / someone else's competitive swimming is only functional through through their life because it makes $ (fighters, trainers and soldiers included) or makes the person happy.

[John Alston]

Originally Posted by Shawn Casey

I'm using functional in more of an 'everybody' sense. Everybody picks up there groceries and everyone has to pic up something heavy and move it sooner or later if they're capable.

You're use more of an athetic point of view; I always thought of functional as handling what everyday normal life gives you. Shoveling, climbing on the roof to get the frisbee, gardening. That stuff.

So from an everyday standpoint, you could get to totally functional for most Western living people with something well below the intensity of xfit or most other programs. Some inclined or loaded walking, moderate lifting, pickup basketball or whatever, and intelligent stretching/yoga, semi-regularly as feels good, and there you go. Extreme modal domains not functional for 99% of us.

[Phillip Garrison]

Originally Posted by Alex Europa

This line if thinking is the problem with mainstream "fitness," and all of your beloved S&C organizations. Fitness is defined as competency in all 10 components of fitness, which has been found over time to translate to excellent overall health (in other words, find me a top-tier CrossFitter that has any marker of health that is considered unhealthy or pathological - I think you'll be hard pressed to find even one). Unless you can provide a different definition or set of standards that has shown itself to be more effective in simultaneously improving the performance AND health of athletes, then arguing this point is nonsensical. The problem with your statement is that fitness isn't defined by an individual, but instead has a relatively clear definition (I say relatively because "What is competency?" - the OP's original question - is still open ended). A shot putter's definition of fitness would almost certainly leave health to the wayside on the path towards a longer throw. If his triglycerides are through the roof because he eats junk food to maintain weight, is he still fit because he throws an American Record? What about a World Record? I argue no on both accounts. His performance is without question incredible, but this doesn't provide latitude within the realms of "fitness." If the definition of fitness is left up to individual athletes, then we'll continue to have non-competitive powerlifters that can't walk up steps without getting winded and LSD runners that can't help you move a couch. It is perfectly acceptable for an athlete to compete in a specific sport, but as trainers, we would be negligent to tell them that they are "fit" merely because they excel at a particular discipline.

You'll argue to the contrary, and I truly don't care...1000+ posts and you still don't get it. I won't respond to your posts, or get into a bickering match with you, I don't have the time or energy for that. I just wanted to call BS on your post. Have a fantastic weekend. EDIT: To everyone else, I would love to delve into this further without the desire to bang myself in the head with a mallet every time I log on...so let's chat it up.

- Alex

Dan John, who is a devoted tennant of CF defines fitness the same way I just defined it. The ability to perform well at a given task. So please take your agenda against the S&C community else where. The definition you are vehemenetly arguing against comes from a CF'r

[Phillip Garrison]

Originally Posted by Sam Ser

thank you for clarifying that "fitness" is a measure of wellness, while "competency" is a measure of ability to perform a specific task. as you point out, competency in one, or even a few tasks is no guaranee of fitness, while fitness is accompanied by at least a certain level of competency in a broad range of tasks.

with that cleared up, the original poster is asking what level of competency in WODs is required to be considered "good" and then "elite" at CrossFit?

of course, that question has been answered many times. the seattle "levels," comparisons of times on logsitall and other sites, etc. all provide good measures of performance.

Fitness and health are not mutually exclusive. I"m sure we could find a few CF'rs with wrist or shoulder problems from bad C&J form or other overuse injuries. Health are wellness are a component of fitness, but the two are not exclusively related.

[Sam Ser]

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrison

Fitness and health are not mutually exclusive. I"m sure we could find a few CF'rs with wrist or shoulder problems from bad C&J form or other overuse injuries. Health are wellness are a component of fitness, but the two are not exclusively related.

umm... right. i don't know how you got the idea that, when i said, "fitness is a measure of wellness," i meant the two were mutually exclusive.



in any case... clearly, being injured is a degree of unwellness. and since developing an injury is obviously not the GOAL of a fitness/wellness program, i don't think injury is relevant in this discussion.

to try to get this train wreck of a thread hijack back on the track of the original poster's question, the issue that is up for discussion is the standard for performance in crossfit. and i believe i dealt with that.

sure, crossfit is not the ONLY way to reach a high level of fitness, either general or specific. and if anyone wants to argue for or against crossfit being the BEST way to pursue fitness, either general or specific, they're welcome to do so, without involving me, in another thread. if anyone wants to argue that crossfit is not actually the pursuit of general physical preparedness but a specific measurement of fitness in its own right, they are also welcome to do so in yet a third thread.

this one started out innocently enough, and ought to end that way.

[Steven Holm]

To Dean, the origin of this thread...If you are doing all the WODs as RX'd and you are 39yrs old and 255, I would consider you fit. I don't want to get caught up into where everyone else took this thread, so I'll leave it at that.