XFit

Powerlifting, Olympic Weightlifting, Strongman, Highland Games

Moderator: Manveer

Post Reply
User avatar
iamsmu
Registered User
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:52 pm
Location: Handicap: +.3
Age: 49
Contact:

Re: XFit

#221

Post by iamsmu » Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:54 am

I'm not sure what to make of this. They are now going to open up other routes to get to the games. I'm not sure how it all works. And I'm not sure how this is supposed to fit with the new focus on health. I haven't read the full press release yet. [The first picture makes me think that I'm not doing a weighted Murph before memorial day. . . ]



edit:?

https://games.crossfit.com/article/duba ... vent/games

Looks like they are also trying to push the international reach. Top competitors in the open from a country with at least 1 affiliate will get to do to the games. Are the games going to get much bigger? . . .

User avatar
broseph
High Fiber
Posts: 4895
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:11 am
Location: West Michigan
Age: 41

Re: XFit

#222

Post by broseph » Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:15 am

iamsmu wrote: Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:54 am Top competitors in the open from a country with at least 1 affiliate will get to do to the games. Are the games going to get much bigger? . . .
Or much less competitive.

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: XFit

#223

Post by asdf » Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:20 am

iamsmu wrote: Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:54 am And I'm not sure how this is supposed to fit with the new focus on health.
Essentially, they're outsourcing the qualifying events for the Games. The idea is that by no longer hosting Regionals, CrossFit will save a ton of money, time, and effort, all of which can be redirected into their core mission.

User avatar
iamsmu
Registered User
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:52 pm
Location: Handicap: +.3
Age: 49
Contact:

Re: XFit

#224

Post by iamsmu » Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:37 am

asdf wrote: Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:20 am
iamsmu wrote: Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:54 am And I'm not sure how this is supposed to fit with the new focus on health.
Essentially, they're outsourcing the qualifying events for the Games. The idea is that by no longer hosting Regionals, CrossFit will save a ton of money, time, and effort, all of which can be redirected into their core mission.
I saw someone suggesting this in the comments. Hosting all those regional events must be pretty damn expensive.

I didn't read all 600 comments, but a lot of people seem worried that the games will swell and be less competitive. HQ says that they will address the issue soon, etc. I'm curious to see how this will play out. I like all the masters categories. I'm not sure what to think about teens. But I don't think I'd want to watch 10 heats in all the main events.

One way to solve the issue, if they've got say 100 competitors would be to have eliminations after a couple events. A few rounds of these would do the trick. They could narrow the competition down to a reasonable number in a few waves.

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: XFit

#225

Post by asdf » Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:35 am

iamsmu wrote: Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:37 am Hosting all those regional events must be pretty damn expensive.
“It’s extremely expensive. Look at the Brazil event. We’re at the venue where the Olympics were held. It cost me over a million dollars and what comes out of it is 2 people go to the Games,” Greg Glassman said.

https://morningchalkup.com/2018/08/23/h ... fit-games/
iamsmu wrote: Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:37 am One way to solve the issue, if they've got say 100 competitors would be to have eliminations after a couple events. A few rounds of these would do the trick. They could narrow the competition down to a reasonable number in a few waves.
That's a good idea.

But I don't really care about the Games. I hope Glassman is sincere about refocusing CrossFit. Back in the day, Robb Wolf and many others told CrossFit HQ they were making a mistake by focusing on the Games. The goal, they said, should be to make sure that every affiliate is up to standard and is a place where you'd feel comfortable sending your mom or grandmother.

User avatar
mgil
Shitpostmaster General
Posts: 8464
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: FlabLab©®
Age: 49

Re: XFit

#226

Post by mgil » Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:56 am

@asdf, if that’s Xfit’s goal, to refocus on the GenPop, that is good. The games seemed to actually alienate the regular person since that level of athleticism seems unreasonable and the market from them misses the point.

Since Xfit doesn’t actually own the concept of cross training, there have been a lot of competitors operating in that space over the past several years and some of those places are pretty decent. Differentiation is needed to protect and gain market share.

Who was the main driver behind the games? Was it Castro?

User avatar
iamsmu
Registered User
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:52 pm
Location: Handicap: +.3
Age: 49
Contact:

Re: XFit

#227

Post by iamsmu » Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:16 pm

asdf wrote: Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:35 am
iamsmu wrote: Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:37 am Hosting all those regional events must be pretty damn expensive.
“It’s extremely expensive. Look at the Brazil event. We’re at the venue where the Olympics were held. It cost me over a million dollars and what comes out of it is 2 people go to the Games,” Greg Glassman said.

https://morningchalkup.com/2018/08/23/h ... fit-games/
Wow! Lots of info in that link.

"With one athlete from each of 162 countries attending the CrossFit Games, as well as a dozen or so more through sanctioned events, the roster of athletes has expanded significantly. At minimum we’re likely to see close to 350 male and female athletes, which is up from 80 this year."

They'll have to run a mini-regionals of sort the first day and cut down the pool. Else they have something very different in mind and are pretty much abandoning anything resembling the current games. . . .

Are there even enough hotel rooms in Madison? I lived there 14 years ago. It's probably expanded, but it's not that big.

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: XFit

#228

Post by asdf » Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:38 pm

mgil wrote: Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:56 am if that’s Xfit’s goal, to refocus on the GenPop, that is good. The games seemed to actually alienate the regular person since that level of athleticism seems unreasonable and the market from them misses the point.
My own view is that the Games have had little if any negative impact on the growth of CrossFit. As I've said before, I think most people attending CrossFit gyms don't really follow the Games, the lawsuits, and the internet drama. That's been my experience.

I think people on this board -- those training with barbells -- are more likely to follow the ups and downs of CrossFit, because we're looking around at other similar activities.
mgil wrote: Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:56 am Who was the main driver behind the games? Was it Castro?
Main driver is hard to say. Certainly, Castro was championing them, and the original Games were on his family farm. But the basic idea was espoused by Glassman in his second model of fitness -- the hopper model -- from his 2002 article, "What is fitness?"

"The essence of this model is the view that fitness is about performing well at any and every task imaginable. Picture a hopper loaded with an infinite number of physical challenges, where no selective mechanism is operative, and being asked to perform feats randomly drawn from the hopper. This model suggests that your fitness can be measured by your capacity to perform well at these tasks in relation to other individuals.

The implication here is that fitness requires an ability to perform well at all tasks, even unfamiliar tasks and tasks combined in infinitely varying combinations. In practice this encourages the athlete to disinvest in any set notions of sets, rest periods, reps, exercises, order of exercises, routines, periodization, etc. Nature frequently provides largely unforeseeable challenges; train for that by striving to keep the training stimulus broad and constantly varied."

https://journal.crossfit.com/article/what-is-fitness

Yes, the last bit quoted about how to train is a non-sequitur. Please spare us all the well-worn objections. (Greg Everett already nailed it with his famous: "Being prepared for any random task is not the same thing as preparing randomly for any task.") I quoted the passages to answer the question about the origin of the Games, not to start a debate about CrossFit's definition of fitness or protocols for training. Thank you.

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: XFit

#229

Post by asdf » Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:49 pm

iamsmu wrote: Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:16 pm Are there even enough hotel rooms in Madison? I lived there 14 years ago. It's probably expanded, but it's not that big.
If that stands as the qualification system, my guess is that most athletes who qualify won't actually attend. Flights, hotels, time off from work -- it adds up.

My wife qualified for Regionals and didn't attend because of work commitments. At the time, there was a formal deadline to commit to attending and when she gave up her spot, it was extended to the next athlete just below the cut-offs. But that was to ensure that the Regionals were full of competitors. If they want the opposite effect, they just don't allow the 2nd-place athletes entry even if the 1st-place decide not to go.

User avatar
mgil
Shitpostmaster General
Posts: 8464
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: FlabLab©®
Age: 49

Re: XFit

#230

Post by mgil » Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:36 pm

Yeah, @asdf, I’m not up for rehashing any arguments against Xfit programming. Now understanding that the typical Xfit gym is offering a very wide spectrum of fitness implements and trying to provide frequent exposure to all of them (both from a general fitness perspective as well as a “keeping clients interested” perspective) the motivation behind the mainsite WOD makes sense and I’ve finally matured enough to understand that some people don’t give a poop about “training” in a narrowly defined sense.

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: XFit

#231

Post by asdf » Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:30 am

So... Austin and Jordan went to a CrossFit Level 1 course and are apparently trying to convince Glassman to host co-branded seminars with Barbell Medicine, geared towards physicians.


Austin
Registered User
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:22 am

Re: XFit

#232

Post by Austin » Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:46 am

I remain skeptical that it will happen, but their shift in mission (seemingly away from the Games and more towards public health) does appear to align with ours. With that said, these "MD L1s" are identical to the regular L1 course and seem to be intended more for physician networking than actual evidence-based education on topics of S&C and health (which is, incidentally, what our seminar is all about). They seemed intrigued by what we do. Who knows. The biggest hurdle, I anticipate, would be their affiliation with a number of folks espousing ideas like the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity, cholesterol denialism, conspiracy theories about pharma/industry/government, etc.

User avatar
mettkeks
Registered User
Posts: 1600
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:28 pm
Location: Siegen, Germany
Age: 28

Re: XFit

#233

Post by mettkeks » Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:59 am

Austin wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:46 am I remain skeptical that it will happen, but their shift in mission (seemingly away from the Games and more towards public health) does appear to align with ours. With that said, these "MD L1s" are identical to the regular L1 course and seem to be intended more for physician networking than actual evidence-based education on topics of S&C and health (which is, incidentally, what our seminar is all about). They seemed intrigued by what we do. Who knows. The biggest hurdle, I anticipate, would be their affiliation with a number of folks espousing ideas like the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity, cholesterol denialism, conspiracy theories about pharma/industry/government, etc.

This Is what generates most of the income in crossfit. How are you going to compete with that?

I wish you guys the best of luck, but I remain skeptical, and I fear a little for the content of future BBM, honestly.

Austin
Registered User
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:22 am

Re: XFit

#234

Post by Austin » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:36 am

mettkeks wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:59 am This Is what generates most of the income in crossfit. How are you going to compete with that?
Is it? How did you determine this?
mettkeks wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:59 am I wish you guys the best of luck, but I remain skeptical, and I fear a little for the content of future BBM, honestly.
Nothing to be fearful of, IMO. If the expectation is that we begin parroting verifiably false / harmful health information to the public, ain't gonna happen. We don't need the money.

User avatar
mettkeks
Registered User
Posts: 1600
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:28 pm
Location: Siegen, Germany
Age: 28

Re: XFit

#235

Post by mettkeks » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:51 am

Austin wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:36 am
mettkeks wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:59 am This Is what generates most of the income in crossfit. How are you going to compete with that?
Is it? How did you determine this?
mettkeks wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:59 am I wish you guys the best of luck, but I remain skeptical, and I fear a little for the content of future BBM, honestly.
Nothing to be fearful of, IMO. If the expectation is that we begin parroting verifiably false / harmful health information to the public, ain't gonna happen. We don't need the money.
Happily admit I pulled it out of my ass. I apologize to anyone who got offended.

But since what you posted is a big thing in CF, endorsed by the leaders and religiously practiced by the folks who pay $200+ a month to become fitter and better than everyone training differently than them, It doesn't seem too promising considering were you guys come from. I mean the SS debacle. Even though I'm not a fan of CF, if you couldn't tell by now, I think what you guys try to do is great. I doubt that It will work out well though.

But again, I don't like to see people fail, and I think it would be cool if you guys can pull it off in a way that aligns with your current philosophy.

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: XFit

#236

Post by asdf » Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:04 am

Austin wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:46 am The biggest hurdle, I anticipate, would be their affiliation with a number of folks espousing ideas like the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity, cholesterol denialism, conspiracy theories about pharma/industry/government, etc.
What do you mean by "cholesterol denialism"?

Who espouses it that has an "affiliation" with CrossFit?

Austin
Registered User
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:22 am

Re: XFit

#237

Post by Austin » Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:24 am

mettkeks wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:51 am Happily admit I pulled it out of my ass. I apologize to anyone who got offended.

But since what you posted is a big thing in CF, endorsed by the leaders and religiously practiced by the folks who pay $200+ a month to become fitter and better than everyone training differently than them, It doesn't seem too promising considering were you guys come from. I mean the SS debacle. Even though I'm not a fan of CF, if you couldn't tell by now, I think what you guys try to do is great. I doubt that It will work out well though.

But again, I don't like to see people fail, and I think it would be cool if you guys can pull it off in a way that aligns with your current philosophy.
Yes, I gathered that you don't like them very much, which is fine. Although we prefer different approaches to training, I think it's apparent that they've done more good than harm, particularly by getting more people training hard than anyone else in recent history. I also think SS and its bizarre culture bubble more frequently mock those who choose to lift weights differently than them, or in a way they deem to be "sub-optimal" (which is particularly amusing when the overwhelming majority of people saying these things aren't even strong). You're going to find that sort of tribalism as part of almost any organization - though I've tried to explicitly discourage it in ours as much as possible.

And no one likes to fail, but it's probably worth a shot if CF wants to have any hope of their message reaching "mainstream" healthcare professionals, who aren't going to freely sign on to ideas that are blatantly contradicted by the available evidence (and I argued this point regarding claims around carbohydrates at the seminar).

If it ultimately doesn't work out, we haven't lost anything in the process, and we'll keep doing what we've been doing to reach more people and professionals. It will be okay.
asdf wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:04 am
Austin wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:46 am The biggest hurdle, I anticipate, would be their affiliation with a number of folks espousing ideas like the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity, cholesterol denialism, conspiracy theories about pharma/industry/government, etc.
What do you mean by "cholesterol denialism"?

Who espouses it that has an "affiliation" with CrossFit?
E.g.: https://www.crossfithealth.com/2018/06/ ... rol-myths/

User avatar
mgil
Shitpostmaster General
Posts: 8464
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: FlabLab©®
Age: 49

Re: XFit

#238

Post by mgil » Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:57 am

@Austin, based on the video you and @JordanFeigenbaum released, I could see this as an opportunity for Xfit to partner with various MDs to focus on those 10 core tenets of fitness, where BBM is the “strength” specialist and other folks like Starett can handle mobility, cardio, etc.

As long as everyone is up front about their domain of specialization, I don’t see it being a compromise of values from either side.

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: XFit

#239

Post by asdf » Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:30 am

Austin wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:24 am
asdf wrote: Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:04 am What do you mean by "cholesterol denialism"?

Who espouses it that has an "affiliation" with CrossFit?
E.g.: https://www.crossfithealth.com/2018/06/ ... rol-myths/
Thanks for the link, but I still don't know what you mean by "cholesterol denialsim." Ravnskov makes more than a dozen distinct claims on page 8 of the pdf. What specifically is being denied that you find it problematic?

Back in 2015, Jordan wrote:

"I also am on board with the general premise that cholesterol is not the direct cause of cardiovascular disease (outside of familial hypercholesterolemia). That being said, I think saying cholesterol doesn't matter at all and dietary saturated fat are also incorrect statements."
https://startingstrength.com/resources/ ... ost1179176

Finally, Alan's latest video is how to make a breakfast with bacon, sausage, butter, milk, cheese, and eggs.

In light of all that, what I really want to know is...

What are your views on diet and lipid panels as they pertain to heart disease?

Austin
Registered User
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:22 am

Re: XFit

#240

Post by Austin » Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:50 am

Cholesterol is a sterol molecule that itself is not causative of cardiovascular disease, and is essential for numerous physiologic functions (hence why every cell in your body can synthesize it on its own, if necessary). Dietary cholesterol intake, in general, tends to have little effect on blood cholesterol levels (except perhaps in a small subset of genetically predisposed individuals).

Cholesterol (among many other things) is carried on various lipoprotein particles, such as low-density lipoprotein particles (LDL-P). The subset of these particles carrying apolipoprotein B are the direct cause of cardiovascular disease, with risk being proportional to the lifelong exposure (i.e., concentration x time) to apoB particles ... and denying this is a problem. This risk can be further accelerated by processes that modify these particles (e.g. smoking, chronic inflammatory states like autoimmune disease, diabetes, HIV infection, etc.) and increase their tendency to become retained in vascular walls and attract the attention of the immune system. [For more, see here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5837225/ ]

When we measure blood lipid panels, the standard assay measures the amount of cholesterol carried on the particles (e.g., LDL-C), rather than the actual number of apoB-containing lipoproteins -- a cheap proxy measurement that is imperfect for a number of reasons and leads to much confusion on the topic. [For more, see here (and ignore the URL): http://www.nofructose.com/wp-content/up ... rofile.pdf ]

"Dietary fat" is a broad, heterogeneous category including monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, and saturated fatty acids. Even within the saturated fatty acid category, saturated fats of varying carbon chain lengths have been shown to exhibit different effects on blood lipid levels -- so to categorically condemn SFA as harmful from a cardiovascular standpoint is incorrect. Conversely, to suggest that they categorically have no effect whatsoever is similarly incorrect. But we don't eat isolated fatty acids -- dietary context matters. [For more, see here: https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/135/9/2075/4664084 ]

This is a topic I discuss at length in my seminar lecture on lipids/cholesterol, their assessment, and management. It is also important to differentiate the diet-heart hypothesis (that dietary fats / cholesterol drive CVD) from the lipid hypothesis (that blood lipids, particularly lipoproteins, drive CVD).

Post Reply