View Single Post
Old 12-01-2009, 09:36 PM   #2
Donald Lee
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 620


I think one of CrossFit's greatest marketing tools is its appeal to being contrarian. This works well when there is so much misinformation in the media, magazines, and internet. Because they appeal to being contrarian, they end up building a following of kool-aid drinkers who end up thinking CrossFit is the measuring stick of all things fitness, sport, nutrition, and health-related.

They tell you that education does not matter. They tell you that exercise science is a pseudoscience, yet they are quick to cite studies when they supports their views. They used to tell you that CrossFit could be implemented into almost every athlete's training program, yet that stance began to evolve as this proved to be untrue. Many see CrossFit's evolution as a positive, but I see it as another marketing ploy. CrossFit's generalized metabolic conditioning has proved not to be the holy grail of fitness, so they began embracing many different things out there (i.e., bringing people from various areas to run certs and write journal articles). They want to become the source of all fitness-related information, yet their constant changing of stances with the changing tides indicates that they don't know what's right in the first place. This is where the lack of education in anatomy, physiology, biomechanics, sport science, nutrition, etc. comes to light. Even Robb Wolf seems to have come to realize the importance of educating yourself in these areas. You can get away with not knowing this stuff when you've built your following in the way CrossFit has. Training for true elite fitness or elite athletics requires much more sophistication than CrossFit would like to acknowledge. They love to criticize exercise science because it allows them to ignore it. The breadth of good information in exercise science is actually pretty large, and thankfully, many coaches who are training Olympic athletes are not ignorant of it.

I don't agree with much of the stuff that people like Dave Tate, Louie Simmons, Dan John, etc. put out there, but at least they don't claim to know everything or overstep their bounds.

If you'd like to know what people's stuff I read now, I read Joel Jameson's stuff at, Lyle McDonald's stuff at, Alan Aragon's stuff at, and Martin Berkhan's stuff at

Steven Splisk's stuff at is good, too, but it's mostly advanced sciencey stuff. I'm thinking about reading James Krieger's stuff at as well.

Also, CrossFit was never really testing new theories. They just wanted you to think whatever they were trying or doing was something new and great.

Glad to vent with you.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote