IGX

"Mel Siff thought that everything he saw was bullshit; well since 99% of everything is bull-shit he was right 99% of the time--an amazing track record. This is the nature of the skeptic, a nature I shared with Dr. Siff."

Shafpocalypse Now wrote: In the Supertraining archives you can find Mel Siff basically calling Glassman a moron.

Mel Siff on Crossfit, from the Supertraining archives:


We were asked by the editor of Girevik Online Magazine to comment on material by Greg Glassman. Well, I proceeded to the Girevik site at: http://www.girevikmagazine.com/ and found the following (my comments are made throughout the excerpts):

-----------------

<Interviews

Greg Glassman is the founder of CrossFit, one of the most advanced fitness protocols around. He has some unique and challenging ideas on the nature of fitness and he was kind enough to share them with Girevik Magazine. He also publishes the CrossFit Journal and has agreed to offer a free issue to our readers, entitled "What is Fitness?"

---------------

EXCERPTS FROM CrossFitness page:

<What Is Fitness and Who Is Fit?

........Perhaps the definition of fitness doesn't include strength, speed, power, and coordination though that seems rather odd. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "fitness" and being "fit" as the ability to transmit genes and being healthy. No help there. Searching the Internet for a workable, reasonable definition of fitness yields disappointingly little

Worse yet, the NSCA, the most respected publisher in exercise physiology, in their highly authoritative Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning doesn't even attempt a definition.

[***NSCA members here- - please confirm or debunk. Mel Siff]

Crossfit's Fitness For CrossFit the specter of championing a fitness program without clearly defining what it is that the program delivers combines elements of fraud and farce. The vacuum of guiding authority has therefore necessitated that CrossFit's directors provide their own definition of fitness. That's what this issue of CrossFit Journal is about, our "fitness."

[***Mel Siff: If he had read Chs 1.5, 1.16 and 2.3 of "Supertraining," he would have noticed that there is no "vacuum" of guiding authority - I have gone to great lengths (and many pages) to define all aspects of fitness very carefully by examining its usage by Eastern and Western sports scientists. I then go on to show how it differs from two other measures of human performance, namely "work capacity" and "preparedness." Before one makes accusations of sports science in general containing serious vacuums, it is important to have studied a very wide variety of the most important books which might offer information on a given topic, otherwise one's opinions come across as unsubstantiated arrogance. The alleged vacuum may exist only because one has not adequately researched the entire topic.

Note that it is essential to define fitness and all related terms in the context of physical training and performance, not across disciplines including evolution theory and medicine. It is also important not to play Procrustean games to fit the definition to one's own preconceptions and
biases, which unfortunately happens to be the case with the CrossFit group.]

Our pondering, studying, debating about, and finally defining fitness have played a formative role in CrossFit's successes. The keys to understanding the methods and achievements of CrossFit are perfectly imbedded (sic) in our view of fitness and basic exercise science.

It will come as no surprise to most of you that our view of fitness is a contrarian (sic) view. The general public both in opinion and in media holds endurance athletes as exemplars of fitness. We do not....>

[*** Mel Siff: By commenting that this is their "view" of fitness, they are already implying the application of Procrustean methods and suggesting that all other scientific definitions are incorrect, despite the fact that they have been used successfully for many years. Later in their book you will notice that they are attacking one view of "fitness" (as I did in great detail in Ch 6 of "Facts & Fallacies of Fitness") on the basis that far too many people regard fitness as being synonymous with cardiovascular endurance. While this criticism is certainly warranted, it is inappropriate to apply the same conclusions to many other sports scientists and coaches who definitely do not think of fitness in this way. The NSCA, sports scientists and many others today certainly do not think of fitness in that naive manner.]

-------------------

Our first model evaluates our efforts against a full range of general physical adaptations, in the second the focus is on breadth and depth of performance, with the third the measure is time, power and consequently energy systems. It should be fairly clear that the fitness that CrossFit advocates and develops is deliberately broad, general, and inclusive. Our specialty is not specializing. Combat, survival, many sports, and life reward this kind of fitness and, on average, punish the specialist.

Sickness ==> Wellness ==> Fitness

...based on measurements of:

Blood pressure
Body fat
Bone Density
Triglycerides
Good and Bad cholesterol
Flexibility
Muscle Mass
etc

Our assumption is that if everything we can measure about health will conform to this continuum then it seems that sickness, wellness, and fitness are different measures of a single quality: health.

[*** Mel Siff: While many medical and health texts and authorities will regard sickness and wellness as lying on some approximate type of continuum (presuming that such conditions are linearly related, which they don't happen to be), fitness is not placed along the same continuum, according to the definitions of physical fitness.

Many pages of "Supertraining" are devoted to developing a Pyramidal Model of Musculoskeletal Fitness (plus cardiovascular endurance to complete the picture) which includes dozens of different "fitness factors" (strength, speed, speed-strength, strength-speed, strength-endurance,
flexibility-strength, skill-endurance, etc (see Ch 1.16.4), so their attempts to develop a novel model of "fitness" have been overshadowed by all the Eastern and Western sports science which enabled this Pyramid to be constructed.]

Many authorities (e.g. Mel Siff, the NSCA) make a clear distinction between health and fitness. Frequently they cite studies that suggest that the fit may not be health protected. A close look at the supporting evidence invariably reveals the studied group is endurance athletes and, we suspect, endurance athletes on a dangerous fad diet (high carb, low fat, low protein).

[*** Mel Siff: Not just "many" - the fact is that most authorities in medicine and science make a very clear distinction between health and fitness, because clinicians have treated and coaches have trained people who are very fit for various sporting activities or manual labour, but have
harboured serious or terminal diseases. Many top athletes suffer from diabetes, asthma, cardiac problems, genetic disorders, some form of cancer or other very significant illnesses, yet they are "fit" for what they do in sport. Only at a much later stage when the illness overcomes the defensive or recuperative powers of the body, is fitness affected. Moreover, it is very well known that some very healthy people are lazy, fat, sedentary and very "unfit" for almost any physical activity that we can mention. Note that my evidence is not based on studies of endurance sport alone, but on a far wider spectrum of activities.

CrossFit in devising their "Challenge" or survival type of extremely varied fitness system are intentionally obfuscating the issue by stipulating that this sort of eclectic fitness is the "best show in town" and sidestepping the fact that athletes are fit for one or a very small number of sports, simply because it is impossible to become a national or world champion in dozens of different sports. That sort of training can be very challenging and rewarding, but it is not necessarily superior to other fitness programs, especially for specific sports.

By the way, that CrossFit approach is not at all original or novel because it is simply a Westernized approach to what has been known for many years as general complex training in Russia and Eastern Europe. A far more balanced approach involves what Verkhoshansky called conjugate training (see plenty of detail on this approach to "Cross Fitness Training" in "Supertraining.

Instead of trying to denigrate others who are concentrating on improving performance in their chosen sport, they should simply have distinguished between general and specific fitness. They could then have stated that the aim of their programme is to offer a far more general and "holistic" type of fitness, one which might serve some role during the GPP (General Physical Preparation) phase of sports conditioning, but not which could significantly enhance sport specific performance. They should simply have commented that there is a time and place for a different type of fitness for everyone and that not one training scheme suits all.]

As a note of interest, Mel Siff PhD, whom we often respect and admire, holds his atherosclerotic disease and subsequent heart attack as anecdotal evidence of the contention that fitness and health are not necessarily linked because of his regular training and "good diet". When we researched his dietary recommendations we discovered that he advocates a diet ideally structured for causing heart disease – low fat/high carb. Siff has fallen victim to junk
science!

[*** Mel Siff: While I have cited my own case to show that one can be apparently very fit aerobically and anaerobically, I certainly did not use that one case study to prove my point. I noted that the medical profession as a whole has dealt with many others like me (others I mentioned recently included James Fixx and Ed Burke, Boston Celtic Reggie Lewis, Olympic figure skater Sergei Grinko, as well as several young sports stars suffering from HCM) - I would be a totally unscientific simpleton to use a sample size of 1 to prove a point, so a remark like that seriously misrepresents me.

Interestingly, I cannot recall anyone by the name of Glassman ever staying in the Siff household or studying me in the laboratory to examine my eating habits, so I am intrigued to know where he found this inside information. The abbreviated tale of my cardiac rehab programme
(http://www.worldfitness.org/drmelsiff.html) certainly said nothing about my specific breakdown of macronutrients in my diet.

Had he read a little more carefully what I wrote, he would have noticed that my diet comprises something like 50-60% lipids (no fried foods, no transfats, no animal fat, plenty of fish) and under 30% carbohydrates (no refined carbs) and hasn't deviated much from that sort of balance for many years - I have never been a lover of high carb diets and have eaten little or no sugar
(other than about 1-2 tablespoons of honey or a few servings of fruit a day). Where on earth does he obtain that nonsense from about my diet?

Most important, I would like to know what "junk science" I have fallen prey to - in fact I find that remark very insulting and inappropriate, especially since it seems to be based solely on sheer opinion. So, I fully expect Glassman to elaborate via a letter to this list what this alleged "junk
science" is. Maybe if he really would like to find out more about my lifestyle, he could attend one of my Supertraining Camps and learn a great deal more about what a far wider spectrum of scientists think about fitness! He could also test his "fitness" to cope with very hot and very cold water in our restoration facility (hot temp for the "fitter" is about 112-114F), but I noticed that his CrossFit system does not directly condition one to cope with environmental extremes or high levels of pain that many of us have to cope with medically at some stage of our lives :)

JamesonBushmill wrote:Reading over the "crossfit finances" thread at PM
http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/sh ... 965&page=3 (will not redirect to a fucking cock laden site)

I wonder what would happen if someone affiliated for a year, created their client base, got all their "marketing support" from the mothership, built up their business, and then de affiliated and advertised themselves as a "former Crossfit Affiliate". Would the CF name (in conjunction with "former") draw hits from Google searches, even though you make it clear that you are not CF anymore to avoid legal action, and be worth the 2 grand you would pay the year prior.

I hope the answer is yes, just so people can do this and funnel money away from those fucking jackals.

JamesonBushmill wrote:Reading over the "crossfit finances" thread at PM
http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/sh ... 965&page=3 (will not redirect to a fucking cock laden site)

I wonder what would happen if someone affiliated for a year, created their client base, got all their "marketing support" from the mothership, built up their business, and then de affiliated and advertised themselves as a "former Crossfit Affiliate". Would the CF name (in conjunction with "former") draw hits from Google searches, even though you make it clear that you are not CF anymore to avoid legal action, and be worth the 2 grand you would pay the year prior.

I hope the answer is yes, just so people can do this and funnel money away from those fucking jackals.

Re: Fitness Goals for 2010?

I'm looking to maximze my fitness(duh) by hopefully reducing the amount of over-use issues I've experienced over the past year or so. My thought is that my overall performance has to go up if I'm not dealing with nagging injuries from the constant pounding they get from training the way I've been. I'm looking at tweeking pretty much everything in that I want to be more well-rounded. This means I want to bring my eating in line with my training(heavy concentration on primal eating), more rest days overall, more joint flexibility in the shoulders, hips and back, and trying to remove my ego from the equation as much as possible when I know I'm likely pushing too far into my "redline". When I say this, I mean I gotta be honest and acknowledge my back surgery I had 3.5 years ago will limit some of the heavy Olypic lifts, so the reality of body-weight snatches probably ain't gonna happen I also want to place a bit more of an emphasis of work-related(firefighter) training. Drags, hauling and sledgehammer swings come to mind. Hopefully, these changes will produce some positive results.

The Nightman wrote:

JamesonBushmill wrote:Reading over the "crossfit finances" thread at PM
http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/sh ... 965&page=3 (will not redirect to a fucking cock laden site)

I wonder what would happen if someone affiliated for a year, created their client base, got all their "marketing support" from the mothership, built up their business, and then de affiliated and advertised themselves as a "former Crossfit Affiliate". Would the CF name (in conjunction with "former") draw hits from Google searches, even though you make it clear that you are not CF anymore to avoid legal action, and be worth the 2 grand you would pay the year prior.

I hope the answer is yes, just so people can do this and funnel money away from those fucking jackals.

that should still rank, even better would be to include it in anchor text, create hyperlinks using the term and use it for picture descriptions. You could even include it your youtube descriptions linking back to your site. Throw a location in there to rank higher in local searches.

I have used this tactic using words in competitors names when describing our boot camp program. I tell people about the "Adventure" they'll have. It helps.

JamesonBushmill wrote:Reading over the "crossfit finances" thread at PM
http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/sh ... 965&page=3 (will not redirect to a fucking cock laden site)

I wonder what would happen if someone affiliated for a year, created their client base, got all their "marketing support" from the mothership, built up their business, and then de affiliated and advertised themselves as a "former Crossfit Affiliate". Would the CF name (in conjunction with "former") draw hits from Google searches, even though you make it clear that you are not CF anymore to avoid legal action, and be worth the 2 grand you would pay the year prior.

I hope the answer is yes, just so people can do this and funnel money away from those fucking jackals.

Jag Panzer wrote:

The Nightman wrote:

JamesonBushmill wrote:Reading over the "crossfit finances" thread at PM
http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/sh ... 965&page=3 (will not redirect to a fucking cock laden site)

I wonder what would happen if someone affiliated for a year, created their client base, got all their "marketing support" from the mothership, built up their business, and then de affiliated and advertised themselves as a "former Crossfit Affiliate". Would the CF name (in conjunction with "former") draw hits from Google searches, even though you make it clear that you are not CF anymore to avoid legal action, and be worth the 2 grand you would pay the year prior.

I hope the answer is yes, just so people can do this and funnel money away from those fucking jackals.

that should still rank, even better would be to include it in anchor text, create hyperlinks using the term and use it for picture descriptions. You could even include it your youtube descriptions linking back to your site. Throw a location in there to rank higher in local searches.

I have used this tactic using words in competitors names when describing our boot camp program. I tell people about the "Adventure" they'll have. It helps.

Fuck if you're gonna do that, then why not just market it as "like CrossFit but better"? I've been mulling that option lately, and there's not really a thing HQ can do about it. It'll save you the $2K and Glass-hole's gin-fueled ranting at least.

If it's about the search engine rankings, then just SEO the shit out of your page with the same strategy. Easy enough to do.

Mickey Mutherfukkin O'neil wrote: Hmmmm. Like CrossFit but I will actually get you strong and keep you healthy.

Mickey Mutherfukkin O'neil wrote:

JamesonBushmill wrote:Reading over the "crossfit finances" thread at PM
http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/sh ... 965&page=3 (will not redirect to a fucking cock laden site)

I wonder what would happen if someone affiliated for a year, created their client base, got all their "marketing support" from the mothership, built up their business, and then de affiliated and advertised themselves as a "former Crossfit Affiliate". Would the CF name (in conjunction with "former") draw hits from Google searches, even though you make it clear that you are not CF anymore to avoid legal action, and be worth the 2 grand you would pay the year prior.

I hope the answer is yes, just so people can do this and funnel money away from those fucking jackals.

Shhh. A super cool, sexy, badass dude I know has been contemplating this.

Sofa King wrote:

Mickey Mutherfukkin O'neil wrote:

JamesonBushmill wrote:Reading over the "crossfit finances" thread at PM
http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/sh ... 965&page=3 (will not redirect to a fucking cock laden site)

I wonder what would happen if someone affiliated for a year, created their client base, got all their "marketing support" from the mothership, built up their business, and then de affiliated and advertised themselves as a "former Crossfit Affiliate". Would the CF name (in conjunction with "former") draw hits from Google searches, even though you make it clear that you are not CF anymore to avoid legal action, and be worth the 2 grand you would pay the year prior.

I hope the answer is yes, just so people can do this and funnel money away from those fucking jackals.

Shhh. A super cool, sexy, badass dude I know has been contemplating this.

Go after the cougars, and call it "Coozefit!" Pay me for my idea with a free membership.

Attila the Hungry wrote:glassman is winning.

unless you guys get serious, you lose.

glassman is a drunk. so what? glasstro are pilanderers. so what? glasstro dumped wolf and everett, and there was a little brouhaha, but in the end, so what? talent like rippetoe departs, and others happy to make a buck--tate, simmons--cheerfully sign on. caviston makes his attackers look laughable, but so what? the next gaymes are being planned, and assertions of phony drug testing last year are dismissed by sycophants as a bunch of so what.

glassman doesn't have to be right about his training program, he just has to be right about how to tap into the hopes of a small segment of the public and to give them a few examples of success to keep them coming. plus, genius, he has licked military balls: real soldiers do this in eye-rack, so you know its hard core.

jenny craig meets top gun, weight loss with attitude.

the naysayers need to fucking do something, instead of all this internet pukey. or just give it up and commit suicide by rhabdo.

GoDogGo! wrote:Hey, Jennifer Aniston called from 1995. She wants her hair back.

The Nightman wrote:

Attila the Hungry wrote:glassman is winning.

unless you guys get serious, you lose.

glassman is a drunk. so what? glasstro are pilanderers. so what? glasstro dumped wolf and everett, and there was a little brouhaha, but in the end, so what? talent like rippetoe departs, and others happy to make a buck--tate, simmons--cheerfully sign on. caviston makes his attackers look laughable, but so what? the next gaymes are being planned, and assertions of phony drug testing last year are dismissed by sycophants as a bunch of so what.

glassman doesn't have to be right about his training program, he just has to be right about how to tap into the hopes of a small segment of the public and to give them a few examples of success to keep them coming. plus, genius, he has licked military balls: real soldiers do this in eye-rack, so you know its hard core.

jenny craig meets top gun, weight loss with attitude.

the naysayers need to fucking do something, instead of all this internet pukey. or just give it up and commit suicide by rhabdo.

Gl@ssman is the Bill Gates of fitness, makes you think he's your partner then just steal your shit and calls it his own.