CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Fitness
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Fitness Theory and Practice. CrossFit's rationale & foundations. Who is fit? What is fitness?

Thread Tools
Old 06-19-2008, 12:14 PM   #11
Tim Luby
Member Tim Luby is offline
Tim Luby's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norwood  NJ
Posts: 972
Re: CrossFit versus HIT

I'll show some restraint here
The log

Last edited by Tim Luby : 06-19-2008 at 12:15 PM. Reason: I was a bad boy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2008, 12:14 PM   #12
Tom Woodward
Member Tom Woodward is offline
Tom Woodward's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco  CA
Posts: 603
Re: CrossFit versus HIT

It looks like Drew's definition of fitness is just different than CrossFit. As you can see in his response to my comment on the site, he doesn't consider balance, coordination, agility, and accuracy to be aspects of fitness, while in Crossfit these have equal (or even more) weight than the other six. Given this, it's not sursprising that the exercises he deems "unsafe" are those that heavily rely on proficiency in these four aspects (All Olympic lifting and kipping pullups).

As far as GPP is concerned, I think these aspects are crucial. Successfully chasing a suspect through gated alleyways or fighting off a pick pocket without balance, coordination, agility or accuracy just ain't gonna work. Not to mention playing any sport, rescuing somebody from a fire, from drowning. Blah, blah, blah.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2008, 01:31 PM   #13
Polo Lopez
Affiliate Polo Lopez is offline
Polo Lopez's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nashville  TN
Posts: 70
Re: CrossFit versus HIT

The article itself is on the outset articulate but with so many references it's hard to know if Mr.Baye has conducted any tests himself. I can appreciate his attempt to define his training but to use Cf as a example of what not to do bothers me. So with that said, I left him a response as our moderator suggested.
He continually mentions the risk of CF and how HIT is safer. Talk about risk to any person working in emergency services, military, hospitals, or even the everyday 9-5 Joe that tackles traffic just to feed his family. Sometimes you have to take a risk to get the job done. Risk is in everything. Athletes in wheelchairs or those using a prosthesis to compete know the risks very well. He failed to mention the amount of time CFer's commit to practicing form and technique.
Regardless of what others may see as a mere opinion, when you compare apples and oranges, you'd better be prepared for a rebuttal, especially if you say your apples are better than someone's oranges.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2008, 10:29 PM   #14
Nick Gagnon
Member Nick Gagnon is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chanhassen  Minnesota
Posts: 317
Re: CrossFit versus HIT

On a small note, you can't really call his program "High Intensity Training" (HIT). HIT was developed a while ago involving total exhaustion of all available muscle fibers in order to create hypertrophy (which can be debatable, meh). His workouts don't really follow the 1 set to failure guidelines, so the name in itself makes the program sound stupid.
  Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crossfit discussion on HIT forum Richard Paul Ham-Williams Community 2 02-11-2007 10:59 AM
Tri-workouts Versus Crossfit Cassi Nesmith Starting 16 02-28-2006 02:54 PM
Has anybody hit a plateau on Crossfit Stanley Kunnathu Starting 5 12-15-2004 10:36 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.