Opinions from Fitness Land

This post might seem a bit off-topic.  But I am a self-admitted fitness nut with 40 years of organized sports experience behind me, and a new life of activity coming after my knee replacement next month.  So I devour fitness information and love plying the webs for blogs linked by writers I already enjoy.

Recently, I commented to my Facebook community after reading an article on a fitness blog.  The blog was linked by another writer I am really enjoying right now,  so I thought the take on fitness and training might be interesting. The author is, as am I, an adherent of lifting heavy things and then mixing it up a bit.

Unfortunately, it turned out she was a Crossfit devotee and typical of that community, mind-limited on training.  Her article was framed by views that are apparently mainstream in the Crossfit community: "we are superior," "others are average (or to be completely disdained for not sporting Crossfit-ideal physiques)", "this is not for you", and "Crossfit is a SPORT for ELITE ATHLETES." And it was that last comment, a direct quote, that led me to comment on FB and then write this.

Don't get me wrong: I admire those committed to randomized, blackbox, metabolic work that includes a mix of moderate to heavy lifting and other exercise intended to tap multiple, even competing energy systems. Those workouts, even the short ones, are ass-kickers and I understand the smug satisfaction that accompanies completing such work. It might even be beneficial as an adjunct to less randomized, authentically structured training for a certain, very limited field of actual sports. But make no mistake it's preparation, not sport and they should be satisfied by that alone.

Despite my admiration for the concepts, I find Crossfit hard to support.  I'm bugged by it's childish elitism, the weird fetishism, and the bizarre, atavistic, political ravings of its founder (who apparently isn't much of an adherent himself). I could write an entire column on it in my blog, but appropriate, professional critiques have already been written by trainers that actually understand how to manage the strength and conditioning of high performance athletes (cf Eric Cressey among others).

As for the difference between training and sport, I choose to ignore dictionary definitions because as several of my friends noted, there is competition in things we wouldn't call sport, and there is training in things that demand exertion but are not competitive. Further complicating the issue, there is competition in things that some would consider training begging the question "Then why not Crossfit?" I'm thinking about Olympic Lifting and Powerlifting, both of which are sports unto themselves, but remain training modalities for far more athletes competing in other sports.

To me the difference is a philosophical one and not just a matter of definition. If you want to compete in seeing who can finish 3 sets of 10 chins followed by weighted sled pushes followed by 3 sets of handstand push-ups, followed by 400 meter runs, have at it. For me, I admire the athletes that do those things in training while also refining specific fine and coarse motor activities, i.e. skills, demanded by the sports they compete in, whether individual or team. Because that's elite.  

I re-read the article trying to discern a knowledgeable vein of information, perhaps something deeper in the post that I might have missed for the apparent narcissism of the writer.  A redeeming point of information marshalled to support the idea she claimed inspired her post; that not all workouts are appropriate for all people (I think she used the term "cookie cutter" but now that I think of it, she did that incorrectly too).  Nope.  She was bragging.  I do this; I'm special; look at me and my physique.  Definitely not elite.