> The voluntary CrossFit community of 15,000 affiliates and millions of individual adherents stands steadfastly and often alone against an unholy alliance of academia, government, and multinational food, beverage, and pharmaceutical companies.
There are two type of crossfitters - those who have gotten a permanent and serious injury, and those who are going to get one.
I am guessing he doesn't push himself to the limit.
I really do think it is an obviously anti-intellectual consumer cult. I know many people who have tried it and decided it was not reasonable.
Edit:
I think my comment comes across as a generalized put-down, which rubbed people the wrong way and garnered the downvotes.
The experience I shared is truthful. Every single person I know that has really fallen into the Crossfit consumer cult is as far as I can tell a person who proves themselves to be susceptible to morally bankrupt, intellectually inept ideas. All of these people legitimately lack critical thinking skills. That's my own experience.
As far as the actual regime goes, it is pretty-well established to be anti-intellectual and flagrantly dismissive of science. They advertise this.
Yes some very fit people also do it and profit off of it. Some very rich people also promote MLM, which is a consumer cult deserving of similar, but worse criticism.
Should I not be able to criticize people who fall into MLM consumer cults? I think we need to allow criticism.
What about scientology, or other religious cults? What about other anti-intellectual cult of ideas like flat earth, anti-vax or phrenology?
Tell me exactly where the line is drawn, and why.
I do think they are worth considering, but also worth criticizing when they're proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be worse than useless.
what is anyone's goal when partaking in exercise? And how about joining a club? Look at the CrossFit Games winners - do you think they've achieved nothing?
I don't partake in it, for the record. And I do acknowledge that many of the exercises seem ill-advised. But I made an account after like 6 years of lurking to point out that you're being pretty dogmatic in your criticisms of dogmas.
I do think it's blatantly obvious that Crossfit is anti-intellectual consumer cult. They advertise this themselves.
It's a bit much to say every single person who does XFit is stupid, but I was sharing my own observations honestly.
Have you met any MLM people? Would you not say the same? Crossfit intentionally dismisses science and warnings related to potential problems with health and injury. Is that not unethical?
Also, all of my negative Crossfit comments seem to have been hit with the same exact number of downvotes here. I wouldn't expect it, but also wouldn't be surprised if there is some brigaiding here.
Such luddites.
Those are probably the vocal ones. Plenty do crossfit and don't harp about it to everyone they meet -- it's just a form of exercise, like running or going for a swim.
And by bad it doesn’t mean they don’t know what they should be doing but rather cave into the demands of their clients that want quick results and to feel the pump.
Just look at how many people go straight into weight lifting with compound exercises without first spending months working on stability, flexibility and burst speed/power.
Then what happens is that they get into a worse state and hit a wall even if they now can bench press 1.5 their body weight.
You would be much better off benching only 100 lbs while being able to stand straight against a wall while keeping your lower back, shoulder blades, elbows and the back of your palm against the wall comfortably throughout a shoulder press.
I’ve literally seen people getting so stiff after “training” for 6 months that I’m not sure if even 2 years of corrective exercises could bring them back to their starting point yet alone to the point where they can start building muscles safely.
And while in the mid 20’s to mid 30’s they might not notice it once they hit their 40’s and couldn’t stand straight because their lats and delts were developed incorrectly and they have no core they sure will.
Some CrossFit gyms have more offerings than just the traditional WoDs. E.g.: your friend might have be mixing mobility training, strength, cardio workouts.
Also, your friend might have latent injuries or have to stop for a week or so due pain/soreness. It is just you are not aware of those.
Some people are anatomically more fit for certain exercises than others. I'll skip any days with dead lifts because it is an exercise I cannot compromise proper form. So, I protect myself even if for many CF coaches it is just temporary weakness I could improve.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6201188/ [2] http://bionics.seas.ucla.edu/education/Rowing/Injury_2004_01...
Judging by how those idiots abuse gym equipment I’d expect poorly, but prove me wrong.
It's much higher. Even the studies show it: https://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/wp-content/u...
https://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/2014/07/08/i...
I’m thinking an intense workout with good form and control vs. a standard CrossFit workout.
A standard CrossFit without is done with good form and control.
For instance, if you were asked to perform a workout which required handstand push-ups and you couldn't do them, you could scale to a box and do a more triangular movement, or you could grab some dumbbells and push-press. If a movement said 100kg deadlift and you can only comfortably deadlift 40kg then you would use 40kg instead.
Most coaches will talk through this and if you have questions, they'll mostly be happy to answer. Of course there are some coaches out there which aren't doing their job correctly, but most of them are really good at what they do.
That wasn't true several years ago during the Uncle Rhabdo phase, and Crossfit only changed its tune because of the overwhelming bad press about injury rates. Back then, it was about doing exercises as fast and as many times as possible.
[1] https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2003/05001/U_S__...
My personal injury was a pinched sciatic nerve brought on by a session of improper deadlifting. I made the mistake of rushing through a workout near when I was lifting my heaviest. Took about 3 months for the pain to go away.
But yeah I've also seen the videos on youtube of people doing heavy barbell back squats on a bosu ball and similar, to use the technical term, stupid shit that will get you hurt.
Mark Rippetoe has one of the better criticisms of CrossFit: it's just an exercise program, not a training program. Proof is that the athletes that compete in and win the Crossfit games don't actually do Crossfit to prepare, they have specific training regimens for those games.
People, specially who are new, haven’t gotten serious injuries, or just don’t understand how exercise can get you high, tend to fall in the WoD trap from my observations.
There have been a great mindset change with CrossFit in terms of sharing good knowledge, welcoming new members no matter their level and mixing everyone together but still everyday seems to be race day in CrossFit.
Specifically, this study conflicts with several other studies that found significantly higher rates of injury (and which this study acknowledges), including 2 studies which found a 20% rate of injury and 50% rate of injury for Crossfit athletes, respectively, using controlled observational samples rather than the self-reported, self-selected sample of this study.
Anecdotally, I don't know any current Crossfitters without overuse injuries--including those who go to the "safe" gyms. I also know a larger number of former Crossfitters, all of whom stopped because of injury.
Can you provide a citation?
Isn't crossfit different depending on where you go?
I believe it was invented by some European guy... who did stuff with kettlebells. And most of those exercises are good.
I think the American variant is the one that's dangerous. (Or am I misinformed here?)
In my observation, and this is at many gyms (btw I don't do Crossfit), very few people do every rep of a pull up from a true dead hang. Kipping is silly looking, but the technique does allow you to progress your way into a muscle up, kind of like a push press can help you train your strict press past what you otherwise could.
Kipping only leads you to kipping muscle ups. Go on YouTube and see examples of real muscle ups from dead hangs with no momentum. That is true strength, and a worthy goal. The sooner you stop kipping, the faster you can get there.
You're absolutely right in that you need to start somewhere, and a properly instructed kip can definitely help there. But you could also start by doing negatives of the partial exercises (start pulled/pushed up and lower yourself down in a controlled manner), which can be at the same time used to teach proper form and naturally transition into a full muscle up.
Once again, it's the classic Crossfit problem: if you do it properly and controlled, it is a nice exercise regimen. According to most anecdotal evidence, a lot of people don't, though.
Edit: retiredcoder also replied with bands etc. to support in the beginning, which is obviously also a good method and, now that I think of it, one I've often seen in my gym. In the same vein, there's usually a pull up machine somewhere in the back that will support you by using a counterweight on the way up, though here you'll have the usual discussion regarding machine/no machine.
Same goes with handstand push-up with against the wall and that kick up. That’s one of the hardest exercises in gymnastics from my experience, why do one want to do that in a HIIT is beyond me.
As for scaling, I never consider not compromising but actually reinforcing proper form even overthinking it, to prepare one for load and speed (when things tend to go awry). As tools and techniques to scale down, there are bands, eccentrics, Grease the groove, etc.
Ps: you seem to have been downvoted but your question seemed legit to me. I hear that a lot from gym mates
You have to accept that it will be a long time before you can do even one proper muscle up, and most people just aren’t willing to so they kip and tell themselves they can do “muscle ups”.
Dribbling looks hilarious too, and basketball is supposed to be a passing game[1], but dribbling isn't illegal and gives the player a competitive advantage in the same vein.
They saw it in CrossFit and suggested a quick-fix. On all the time I fitnessed, they were the only ones that saw it.
Just my 2 cents
What a weird and unnecessary rant.
Weirdly, FB banned a group advocating against 'fat makes you fat' in 2019.
> Recently, Facebook deleted without warning or explanation the Banting7DayMealPlan user group. The group has 1.65 million users who post testimonials and other information regarding the efficacy of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. While the site has subsequently been reinstated (also without warning or explanation), Facebook’s action should give any serious person reason to pause, especially those of us engaged in activities contrary to prevailing opinion.
But if the researchers don't communicate effectively with the rest of us, or with our physicians, then why do they even bother going to work in the morning? It's not my job to read scientific journals, and the doctors are as confused by the barrage of junk science as anyone else.
Smug, uninformed tool for corrupt authority
CrossFit’s “Holy War”: The Rise And Fall Of Its Science Crusader https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/russell-b...
If you want to make a case for your idea on any topic, put money on that topic and professors and researchers work towards making a case for it (this is less true about math and (maybe?) physics but the farther you get from those topics, the more impact money has on results and ideas).
Academia (mostly? in the US) is just yet another institution that is solely driven by money.
It's like you're right, but completely wrong at the same time... At it's core, scientific research should not have an agenda. Researchers are normally happy to do important things and they have good ideas.
Yes, the funding is a really big issue and lack of needed followups to interesting results of the initial sponsor often happens when the sponsor is not involved anymore. Researchers essentially either have to work for someone or come up with topics and then beg potentially-interested people for money. (aka research grants)
Academia being driven by money has less to do with academia and more with lack of money it needs to work on independent research.
> Researchers are normally happy to do important things and they have good ideas.
That's not how research works, however---at least not what I experienced. Usually a goal is the prerequisite of the funding. If that goal doesn't align up with the interest of the company/or the funder, there won't be any funding to begin with. That's a lie that researchers tell themselves, that they have the freedom to work on w/e they find amusing.
> Academia being driven by money has less to do with academia and more with lack of money it needs to work on independent research.
Sure. If academia was a utopia that wasn't so dependent on money (and fame), science would take over. That utopia isn't anywhere in sight, however. Try going through academic job market: a popular question you get is how you are going to bring money into the university. If you don't have a good answer, you won't get a position. As a professor, you will be spending 80%+ of your time writing grants or, as you put it, begging different companies for money. The other 20% is spent on classes and bureaucratic headaches. A good professor that I knew had a long rant on how she never gets to do research anymore (from a very well known university).
People twist words and data to make their point, get a publication, make a name for themselves, get more money, and repeat the cycle, all in the name of research and science.
My point isn't that the academic people as a whole are bad, but many of them are trying to survive and are willing to do w/e it takes to bring in money. It is very easy to abuse the bunch when people are trying to survive.
All I am suggesting is that you need to be critical when reading academic papers. Regardless of the content, topic, etc. read and decide for yourself---if it is a field that you are proficient in---or read opinions on counter points.
They don't have to be as long as others can verify their findings. At some point, mistakes and dishonesty should be treated the same way.
> Usually a goal is the prerequisite of the funding. If that goal doesn't align up with the interest of the company/or the funder, there won't be any funding to begin with.
I think we're very much in agreement. I just don't put that as academia's problem, but rather explicitly on how we fund it. A.k.a blame the game not the player.
I find that ysually people that use buzzwords like “antivaxxer” aren’t all that curious about the topic, and prefer to hide behind consensus opinion whilst castigating inquisitive people that look at the evidence themselves as ignorant and crazy.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...