The couch thread

[Yes I Have Balls]

1. The super-wellness notion as originally posited seven years ago in "What is Fitness?" and subsequently amended significantly and publicly, was originally included as one of the four models of fitness, chiefly the "sickness wellness, fitness continuum", where the simple, and perhaps elegant, observation is made that for every metric, that I can find, well ordered values range from those traditionally associated with being sick to being fit with values associated with being "well" in between. This suggests to me this morning, as it did back then, that sickness, wellness, and fitness are varying, well ordered measures of the same phenomenon. Thus wellness can be a state between sick and fit, or that fitness is "super wellness".

2. We've since defined fitness as "work capacity measured across broad time and modal domains". A far better, in being more accurate and precise, model and measure than the four models offered seven years ago. (Without significantly invalidating their utility or validity, I might add.)

3. The fourth model, the "sickness, wellness, fitness continuum", a simple empirical observation, was the impetus for making another, and much later, defining observation and that is that we can define "health" as "fitness", or work capacity measured across broad time and modal domains, measured throughout a life span. This takes the two dimensional model of fitness and ads a third axis, "age", producing a solid that is, it seems to me and many of our physicians, a geometric model for "health", or at least a reasonable, useful, definition and model for health. It was further observed that any "glitch" in life that may measurably affect quality of life might in turn affect work capacity and would therefor "show" in the graph as a drop in work capacity and consequently a drop or diminution of "health" even if transiently. For instance, a broken arm, a bad drug rxn, a stroke, or CHD would manifest in the graph as a down sweep in the "curtain" that is the surface of the solid - and consequently a drop in "health" as we propose definitionally, etc.

4. It is one thing to suggest that quantifiable methods, and measurable definitions with the potential for accuracy and precision replace non-scientific ones (see ACSM and NSCA on definitions of "fitness" and any group of physicians definition of "health") and quite another thing to offer up some actual parameters and definitions that can be measured and graphed accurately and precisely, and a third thing to possess the resources to actually measure them. The fact remains that the ultimate utility of our proposed metrics can only be demonstrated by someone/anyone/everyone making the measurement of the suggested parameters. I'm working on: a) getting people to grasp what we're saying (you, for instance), b) getting the world to acknowledging the need for definitions amenable to accurate and precise measure for terms in near universal use in fitness and medicine (see nutrition debate raging publicly here and more importantly on "CF scandal/nutrition sites), and c) finding the resources, or better yet, the resourceful, to make the measure. (On this last point, large academic institutions have just recently come forward proposing to measure exactly this.)

So the proposed legacy of CF is that we've defined "functional movement" as those movements categorically unique in their ability to express power, and power, or work capacity looking under the curve, is "fitness" when measured across broad time and modal domains and that fitness so measured across a life span modal, or any span of life, is "health". It is my hope that by giving workable, useful, accurate and precise definitions to "functional exercise", "fitness", and "health" that we'll inspire, at the least, rationale discourse, and at the best, prove utility in motivating scientific discovery. (Our corporate charter is to advance a technology for advancing human performance publicly and through open source methods.)

I hope that this somehow "gives", but something in your tone, and the lack of familiarity with my total position leaves me with the impression that nothing will ever really "give" with you, but I'm willing to start with helping you or anyone else comprehend our/my public and oft stated position on the matter before we get to the "giving".

If I seem a little irked, sorry. I'm going to remain, as is staff, uber-sensitive to collegiality, so that we don't become here as irrelevant to truth and fitness as some of our detractors and their websites.

Sleepless in Iraq,

Greg
Comment #206 - Posted by: Coach at December 12, 2009 6:18 PM

Couch is angry....very angry and is taking to posting to comments instead of making any official statement.

[dead man walking]

what's the story with "bingo"?

he seems to be designated apologist:

Wow. Fascinating place recently,eh? A little family spat, a tiny pseudo-controversy and all of a sudden we're a community of skinless hands, worn down to the bone with all the wringing and all.

followed by a ramble in which he appears to be channeling barry hog body.

[Mountebank]

bingo is Dale Saran, @FHQ attorney and member of the apologist crew.

[dead man walking]

he's the human version of syrup of ipecac

[Shave Astroglide]

[/1][/1]

Lotta love on the Rob Wolf blog


Nick W
Posted December 11, 2009 at 2:31 am | Permalink
I posted the following on the Affiliate blog, I’m not sure if it’ll be approved or deleted so I’ll cross-post it here. The first paragraph is a quote from Glassman, the rest is my response:

————

“Robb,
The difficult thing about sputtering infantile rage as a business tactic is that it serves no winnable strategy. You are still confused by the logic of quality and quantity in clinical nutrition, their remarkable interdependence, and our track record on the subject. Your claim that people have gotten results abandoning the starting proportionality makes my point (reread the parts about accuracy and precision and you’ll see that manipulating, massaging, or drifting (or “abandoning”) the starting proportionality is essential to clinical nutrition and dialing in a diet. We differ in that your public claim is that weighing and measuring do not work and are not useful. That you think you can do without weighing or measuring food and clients is proof to me that your claims about your education and being a scientist both need examination. BTW, I’ve seen your CV and so have a lot of other people.”

The problem here, Greg, is that this isn’t an accurate reflection of Robb’s position at all, and it’s a bit rich to snipe about “bad reading” on Robb’s part only to twist 5 years’ worth of Robb’s forum posts, nutrition certs, Journal articles and blog entries so badly.

This isn’t the message that Robb promotes at all. He disagrees with Sears’ (frankly ridiculous) assertions that exact portion control is more important than food quality, preferring instead to eat real food over ding dongs and McDonalds burgers. You know, kind of like the first part of the nutritional portion of “World Class Fitness in 100 Words” that you wrote way back when, which is: “Eat meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch and no sugar.”

That doesn’t mean he says portion control is unimportant. It doesn’t mean that Robb is telling people never to think about portions, or never to WAM. It’s simply a difference in priorities, and his view of “quality first, quantity second” seems to be shared by a LOT of people and backed up by a LOT of real world data. But Robb also talks and writes about the Zone, portion control and balancing macronutrients a lot; the difference is that he isn’t tied into pushing a fixed macronutrient ratio because he hasn’t got a dozen books to sell based on a single premise. So he can discuss the Zone and the Athletes Zone, but also modifications to it (e.g. the “42 Ways…” article, deleting carb blocks etc.), Intermittent Fasting, VLC diets, unweighed Paleo, Paleo + dairy and more. His typical recommendation is to get lean by controlling intake and to use performance and how you feel as feedback; you know, kind of like the second part of the nutritional portion in 100 words, which is: “Keep intake to levels that will support exercise but not body fat.”

And if you care to look, you’ll never see a rabid adherence to any of these approaches; you’ll see informed discussion of their benefits, drawbacks and potential uses, along with the regular advice to “try it for a while and see how you look, feel and perform”. Robb isn’t trying to ram anything down anyone’s throat, he presents options and asks people to work out what’s best for themselves (ironically, exactly the message in Dave Castro’s journal video a few days ago). The examples he cites of athletes moving from strict Zone to unweighed Paleo and seeing improvements are just that – real-world examples. Again, this is a far cry from telling people it “does not work and is not useful”.

It’s a real shame to see this level of obfuscation and misinformation. Your condescending tone towards Robb is also unnecessary and childish. Sadly, you’ve taken a situation that was already badly handled and bodged it a little bit more. And I’ll brush over the irony of you calling out Robb on his “claims” to have gone to medical school when you have enough unsubstantiated claims of your own to deal with (where ARE all the CF-built 500-750lbs deadlifters by the way?)

Better than fuckin tv =D> =D> =D>

Maybe it's just me but what the fuck is up with Couch? He used to be a master at the curb-stomp. Josh hillis-STFU. Dan John- A no squat having COWARD. THIS is it? He called out Wolff saying he did not have any science and some shit about aldosterone. Then Wolf puts up videos of the material, proving Couch to be a liar. Now Couch questions Wolff's credentials? This is it?

CF.com is locked down tight with no dissenters allowed through. This is seriously pissing off those silly affiliates, the ones who built Couch's empire. Is Couch so used to lying that he thinks anyone will believe anything? Does couch need more pot? Gin? Fat hispanic mistresses? I think Couch is on his last legs. One picture comes to mind:

[lasalle]

bingo is Dale Saran, @FHQ attorney and member of the apologist crew.

All due respect, but bingo is not Dale Saran.

[Shave Astroglide]

Even-Esh is out there on Wolf's blog calling Couch a coward and a liar straight up.

that's why he is on the main page. They are trying to circle what wagons they can. next comes black listing.

[LiftHeavyShit]

and that fitness so measured across a life span modal, or any span of life, is "health"

How do his shirt ripping bitch tits play into the span of life modal? Is gin induced gyno part of the functional definition of health? Talk about cutting edge.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

Fucking stupid statement by Couch, as usual, with a bunch of made up shit that has no basis in how things are.

"work capacity measured across broad time and modal domains"

That's a description, not a definition. To make that meaningful, he needs to define what work capacity is. He then needs to define what "broad time" and "modal" are. And even then it's a vague, essentially useless statement.

For instance, a broken arm, a bad drug rxn, a stroke, or CHD would manifest in the graph as a down sweep in the "curtain" that is the surface of the solid - and consequently a drop in "health" as we propose definitionally, etc.

Fucking lovely, here couch rips off Dan John's "The Body is One Piece" concept YET AGAIN. Not to mention the utter inapplicability of his stupid little pseudo-mathematic model.

Look here. I have a pie.

If I put this pie on end, and spin in, it forms a volume of space similar to a sphere.

Now look. I've eaten a pice of pie.

When we spin the pie again, the area cut out of the volume of the sphere equals fitness.

His words, individually, have meaning, but taken together, they don't mean a fucking thing. I bet he's having a fucking hard time finding booze in Iraq, and is undergoing a bit of the delerium tremors and is grumpy about it.

[LiftHeavyShit]

To make that meaningful, he needs to define what work capacity is. He then needs to define what "broad time" and "modal" are. And even then it's a vague, essentially useless statement.

Vagueness is the only consistency you'll find with Couch. It's the key to his model of modal bullshit. All the old talk about world champions and Olympians has given way to this new crock of shit. He learned the value of vagueness after being exposed for all the made up shit he said in the past. No meaningful champions, no real gymnastic history, no real Olympic champions, no 700 pound deadlifts, no real ring injury, no fucking nothing.

They can't even create someone who can compete in a real sport so they went out and made up their own shit.

Couch is a fraud and always will be.

[Mountebank]

bingo is Dale Saran, @FHQ attorney and member of the apologist crew.

All due respect, but bingo is not Dale Saran.

You are correct. I got my "@F apologists whose first name starts with D" mixed up...

[Botototo]

bingo is Dale Saran, @FHQ attorney and member of the apologist crew.

All due respect, but bingo is not Dale Saran.

Bingo is Darrell E. White.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

Jay Ashman, who is an apologist on the CF comment page and forum, but will then suck up to Wolf and Everett can suck it.

[T200]

He does seem like a fucking knob in that PM thread.

Even POD called him out and rightfully so for that nonsense in his blog about "living @Fit."

When POD is calling you out it is time for some serious soul searching.

[Holland Oates]

I don't know.

I like to think of us as being some serious positive influences on POD.

At least him and BOTO had the balls to post unlike all these lurking @fit faggots.

And yeah Catalyst is Everett's site.

[rjudo]

At least him and BOTO had the balls to post unlike all these lurking @fit faggots.

What Ed said, lotta fuckin "guests" lately.

[T200]

I like to think of us as being some serious positive influences on POD.

Yes, he is definitely improving. By default he would win a "most improved poster" award. He started out so low (not Shave Astroglide low but really fucking low and now he is somewhat tolerable).

[Jag Panzer]

Fucking stupid statement by Couch, as usual, with a bunch of made up shit that has no basis in how things are.

"work capacity measured across broad time and modal domains"

That's a description, not a definition. To make that meaningful, he needs to define what work capacity is. He then needs to define what "broad time" and "modal" are. And even then it's a vague, essentially useless statement.

For instance, a broken arm, a bad drug rxn, a stroke, or CHD would manifest in the graph as a down sweep in the "curtain" that is the surface of the solid - and consequently a drop in "health" as we propose definitionally, etc.

Fucking lovely, here couch rips off Dan John's "The Body is One Piece" concept YET AGAIN. Not to mention the utter inapplicability of his stupid little pseudo-mathematic model.

Look here. I have a pie.

If I put this pie on end, and spin in, it forms a volume of space similar to a sphere.

Now look. I've eaten a pice of pie.

When we spin the pie again, the area cut out of the volume of the sphere equals fitness.

His words, individually, have meaning, but taken together, they don't mean a fucking thing. I bet he's having a fucking hard time finding booze in Iraq, and is undergoing a bit of the delerium tremors and is grumpy about it.

This sounds like some shit you'd talk about when you're sitting around getting high with your dope-head surfer buddies.

Oh, right.

[GoDogGo!]

I bet he's having a fucking hard time finding booze in Iraq, and is undergoing a bit of the delerium tremors and is grumpy about it.

Do they have juniper bushes in Iraq? He could gnaw on one and, though it wouldn't provide alcohol, the taste might provide some psychological comfort. Dependency has both physiological and psychological modal domains and stuff.

[T200]

There's always opiates around somewhere. They will take the edge off.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

I saw MOD suggested I be unbanned from Pmenu. How sweet. I had my little bitchfit when I was banned, but it's all water under the bridge.

Ashman, I think, just likes kissing ass. Some people are like that, they are just natural born asskissers. Kind of like how Mickey is a natural born pussy magnet and Shape is a natural born camper.

Ditto on the POD and BOTO shit. Both those lads have balls to say shit like "Hey, here's a softcore pic of a asian boy doing and L-sit", and then when you say you'd fuck that dude in the ass, he says "YAY! IT'S ME!" or "I like to do adult gymnastics so I can help other guys take their clothes off" and that shit's less gay than the way Ashman writhes around on the floor with his finger up his butt waxing ecstatically about XF.

Shave Astroglide though, man...even with coaching...holy negro christ. There might not just be anything that can be done.

[T200]

Oh man, I just noticed Ashman is the nigga who was overhead squatting the Christmas tree a couple weeks ago.

On his @Fit page he has like the same resume as you, Shaf.

[Jag Panzer]

It's a merry functional Christmas this year.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

Is the OHS picture less gay than the handstand pic?

For a dude? Cuz I don't care if chicks do that shit.

[Crust Bucket]

I guess this is cr@ssshits version of group sex.