Just reread CrossFit Journal on Metabolic Conditioning...

[Pat McElhone]

Originally Posted by Chris Walls

Isn't that Brian Clay about to bench more than a lot of people probably deadlift?

and I bet he has never heard of "Linda".

[Andrew Wilson]

Just recieved Crossfit Rhabdo 218 in a PM, from an affiliate owner that did "Nicole"

[Justin Arnold]

now THAT is ironic.

but then again maybe not.. given the climate at HQ.

[Shane Skowron]

Originally Posted by Justin Z. Smith

http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/12/...andefining.tpl

Justin

Thanks. That is what I was looking for.

There's so much pseudo-logic and arrogance going on in this video. What's most ironic is that Glassman tells the guy "you're getting really non-science here." What a jerk.

I wish I had been in that audience. The guy who asked the questions started out by making some good points but I think he got intimidated and couldn't really point out GG's fallacious argument. The whole concept of "constantly varied functional movement at high intensity" is "big" because there is no limit to what is considered varied. If I picked a functional movement (squats), and I did it at high intensity (near max effort) every day, but I changed the weights and reps, then it is still constantly varied, isn't it? So that's Crossfit.
If it's not, then there must be a frequency of repetition by which something is "not varied" enough. Maybe it's such that you can't do the same exercises two days in a row to be considered Crossfit. Oh wait, they've done that on crossfit.com too.

And yes, Glassman, definitions can be big. It's actually a logical fallacy:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/broad.htm

[Russell Crosswy]

Originally Posted by Shane Skowron

Thanks. That is what I was looking for.

There's so much pseudo-logic and arrogance going on in this video. What's most ironic is that Glassman tells the guy "you're getting really non-science here." What a jerk.

I wish I had been in that audience. The guy who asked the questions started out by making some good points but I think he got intimidated and couldn't really point out GG's fallacious argument. The whole concept of "constantly varied functional movement at high intensity" is "big" because there is no limit to what is considered varied. If I picked a functional movement (squats), and I did it at high intensity (near max effort) every day, but I changed the weights and reps, then it is still constantly varied, isn't it? So that's Crossfit.
If it's not, then there must be a frequency of repetition by which something is "not varied" enough. Maybe it's such that you can't do the same exercises two days in a row to be considered Crossfit. Oh wait, they've done that on crossfit.com too.

And yes, Glassman, definitions can be big. It's actually a logical fallacy:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/broad.htm

I would imagine a logical fallacy class would have a field day with using Greg Glassman videos for examples of different logical fallacies.

[Tom Seryak]

Originally Posted by Shane Skowron

Thanks. That is what I was looking for.

There's so much pseudo-logic and arrogance going on in this video. What's most ironic is that Glassman tells the guy "you're getting really non-science here." What a jerk.

I wish I had been in that audience. The guy who asked the questions started out by making some good points but I think he got intimidated and couldn't really point out GG's fallacious argument. The whole concept of "constantly varied functional movement at high intensity" is "big" because there is no limit to what is considered varied. If I picked a functional movement (squats), and I did it at high intensity (near max effort) every day, but I changed the weights and reps, then it is still constantly varied, isn't it? So that's Crossfit.
If it's not, then there must be a frequency of repetition by which something is "not varied" enough. Maybe it's such that you can't do the same exercises two days in a row to be considered Crossfit. Oh wait, they've done that on crossfit.com too.

And yes, Glassman, definitions can be big. It's actually a logical fallacy:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/broad.htm

i saw a guy running on a trail at the metropark yesterday. he stopped at the overlook to do some incline push-ups on the bench. he must be a crossfitter

[Derek Weaver]

It may be annoying, but it still looks like.... 335?

That's not Bryan Clay is it?

edit:
That apparently is Bryan Clay.

[Corey Kissel]

http://www.vimeo.com/27423280

Discuss.

[Corey Kissel]

Originally Posted by Shane Skowron

Thanks. That is what I was looking for.

There's so much pseudo-logic and arrogance going on in this video. What's most ironic is that Glassman tells the guy "you're getting really non-science here." What a jerk.

I wish I had been in that audience. The guy who asked the questions started out by making some good points but I think he got intimidated and couldn't really point out GG's fallacious argument. The whole concept of "constantly varied functional movement at high intensity" is "big" because there is no limit to what is considered varied. If I picked a functional movement (squats), and I did it at high intensity (near max effort) every day, but I changed the weights and reps, then it is still constantly varied, isn't it? So that's Crossfit.
If it's not, then there must be a frequency of repetition by which something is "not varied" enough. Maybe it's such that you can't do the same exercises two days in a row to be considered Crossfit. Oh wait, they've done that on crossfit.com too.

And yes, Glassman, definitions can be big. It's actually a logical fallacy:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/broad.htm

Yep, this video totally did it in for me. It was this very video that put me over the top for the whole CF mantra and no one wanted to continue the discussion as you can tell.

I'm the last comment on the thread, I'll just post what I said so you guys can find the posts that make this video look like a joke.

"This issue still remains unresolved in my mind, the number of posts above that have questioned the broad all-inclusive definition still leave my explanation contradictory when classifying what is and isn't "CrossFit."

The CrossFit Journal and mainsite have provided me with more knowledge about fitness than I could have ever dreamed of during my undergraduate study in strength and conditioning. I have nothing but great things to say about the contributions that have been and are continuing to be made on a daily basis by HQ and affiliates.

That being said, I can not see how CVFMHI is an appropriate description for what constitutes "CrossFit" for reasons such as post number 27, 44, 45, 53, 57, 64, 65, all posts from Matt Solomon...etc. Also of interest would be to what degree "broad time and modal domains" are "CrossFit" (i.e. how broad, which modes - in which case the modes can not be defined as functional movements for reasons such as the previously posted non-functional movements being utilized to improve functional movement capacity)

I hope we can share some more insight and perspectives to continue this discussion." - Me

I acted as inferior and willing to learn as I could have possibly been, and maybe too much caused it to seem like sarcasm which defeated the purpose, but that post was over 3 months ago and not a single one of those questions are answered in any of the responses before mine. All of Budding's arguments are circular. GG is so ridiculously into himself in that video it makes me sick. "This isn't our first rodeo, you know." You would think after lecturing hundreds of times he could actually define his own terms, but he fails to do so. I think I remember him saying that defnitions are amenable blah blah and blah, the very essence of CF is yet to be defined...

[Corey Kissel]

Yeah, he said "I don't think definitions have magnitude, they're not big or little, but they're amenable to precise and accurate estimation.".

Seems paradoxical to me.