Talk:CrossFit/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about CrossFit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticisms

I think this section needs a massive overhaul. The "injury" section needs to be updated to include new studies on this subject, and should include some context that explains the controversy regarding CrossFit and injury. It is also important to note that the NSCA is a direct competitor to CrossFit and the two companies are currently engaged in a lawsuit over this topic. The page currently uses NSCA expert opinion to critique CrossFit. This seems a bit like including the critiques of Coca-Cola experts on the Pepsico page. Secondly, many of these categories look like they were added by first-time wikipedia users to highlight something that offended them on social media. Perhaps a distinct "social media presence" paragraph for the page would suffice? Ischus (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I just re-wrote the "injury" section within the Criticisms paragraph. I removed the 2008 quote from the Waterloo professor commenting on CrossFit videos and provided more substantive summaries of the criticisms against the CrossFit program and updated the citations to include major media coverage of this topic. I also briefly noted the three studies that have commented on CrossFit and injury rate. Ischus (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine to me (because I hate CrossFit Fail videos as they are not usually representative of typical training). Also, I don't know how long you have been involved in CrossFit but I should note that you removed a line about minimalist footwear. In the Pre-Reebok days, minimalist footwear (such as five fingers, other "barefoot"-style shoes, chuck taylors, etc.) was actually quite common and the Nano/Metcon style of show is meant to balance the feel of a minimalist shoe with a running shoes and hard soled lifting shoes. As for social media, Glassman is notorious for trying to incite reactions from others so your idea on separating his online presence wouldn't be a terrible idea since he will probably create other notable "controversies" in the future.Yosemiter (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: I removed the note on minimalist footwear because it appeared to just be the perception of an editor. If there is a source that shows CrossFit teaches adherents to wear a specific type of footwear, this would change things. Ischus (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Inadequate training application for sports

I'm going to remove this section. It's a summary of opinions from the NSCA, which is a competitor of CrossFit. This again seems like adding Coca-Cola criticisms to the Pepsico page. I believe the general sentiment of these criticisms could be reflected with a single additional line in the "effectiveness" paragraph. Ischus (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ischus: While I see why the NSCA could be considered a "competitor" of CrossFit Inc., they have a lot of backing and significant history with research on fitness and conditioning that they still represent a valid and verifiable argument against doing general CrossFit WODs vs. specialized training. Using your examples of Coke vs. Pepsi, it is probably more like Coke vs. Monster Energy (in that it is a product that has been around awhile stating that the newer product isn't as good as the their product because it is designed to do something different). Also a good note for re-including it would be referencing the many sport-specific CrossFit-backed training programs such as CF Football, Endurance, etc. in order to address this very argument. Yosemiter (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: Agreed. One thing that would certainly help the section is to more accurately reflect the source cited (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/Abstract/2014/04000/College_Coaches_Corner_CrossFit.13.aspx). The source notes repeatedly that the conclusions of the article are just opinions of the authors. I also think looking for a published response to this criticism would be an easy way to bring balance to the topic. Ischus (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am inclined to re-add this section to the criticisms because it is widely believed and practiced. (By practiced, I mean that I know several coaches who program sport-specific S&C using CF methods for youth and club sports participants as well as my previous mentions). Using the opinions of the NSCA-based authors is far more verifiable than the opinions of participants and bloggers, so as reference it is fine. Yosemiter (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: I am re-thinkng how to handle this section. I am unable to access the full article that was cited for this section. What is the criticism exactly? I ask because it sounds like you are saying you know people who adapt CrossFit to sports specific purposes? I think this is actually what CrossFit suggests for athletes to do. This video shows CrossFit HQ teaching that CrossFit is not intended to be a sport-specific program, but is a GPP program that sports coaches can use along side sports specific training: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIoGRsU3vnQ. If the NSCA is criticizing CrossFit for not being suitable for sports-specific needs, it seems they are just unaware of what CrossFit teaches.Ischus (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ischus: I decided against adding it back after re-reading it as it is entirely opinion-based and not practice. In the article, certified CSCS trainers (among other certs) examined a bunch of CF workouts (mostly from the mainsite) and determined it wasn't suitable for their clients because it is too broad and doesn't align the more specific training needed for specific sports. It does appear those involved with the article were unaware of alternative training programs endorsed by CF (which could be applied to many people who are critical of CF just because of all the stupid "CF Fail" videos that permeate the internet). Yosemiter (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Control I'm also removing this section. It seems redundant considering this is essentially a concern about injury, which is already addressed in the injury paragraph. It also relies heavily on citations from "bloggers" and consists of only three sentences. It seems pretty redundant. Ischus (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Greg Glassman quote on Coke/Nick Jonas

I've expanded the Social Media Presence paragraph to include a description of the controversy between CrossFit and Coke/Nick Jonas from 2015. I think it should include Glassman's quote about Jonas, but it is profane (http://www.maxim.com/maxim-man/crossfit-greg-glassman-exclusive-2015-9). Does anyone have any experience dealing with profane quotes on Wikipedia? It seems like profanity is OK if it is a verbatim quote from the source. Ischus (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ischus: See anything in WP:NOTCENSORED and use your best judgement. Yosemiter (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed Lawsuit subhead

This section on the Chloie Jonsson lawsuit was pretty poorly written, didn't seem to fit into the "criticism" category, and wasn't well supported with citation. It's an interesting subject but I don't think it fits here and I'm not convinced it's noteworthy enough for the context of a wiki article.Ischus (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on CrossFit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Non neutral sources

A good deal of the content defending Crossfit in this article comes from crossfit itself. The websites therussells.crossfit.com and therussellsblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com are used as sources and they come from a crossfit blog which bills itself as "Defending the brand from junk science, yellow journalism, and invincible ignorance". This is not a reliable source and creates false balance by having the company itself defend the company right here on Wikipedia. Dammitkevin (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the find - that certainly is not a reliable source. I removed the content. Let me know if you find anything else. Meatsgains (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Meatsgains and Dammitkevin: While I agree that it is non-neutral source, the Russells work directly with Crossfit Inc. which make them a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. That particular reference was a reprint of a court document and it was meant as closure for particular case involving Crossfit, so I am pretty sure that is exactly when a primary source would be applicable for use per WP:PRIMARY. Yosemiter (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I may have been a little quick to remove but when I see "wordpress" in a reference I assume unreliable. Might be best for us to find another link to the court document. Thoughts? Meatsgains (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Yosemiter (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Dammitkevin you are absolutely right, the content I've added and photos came from the Latin Australian Times and it was all deleted straight away. Definitely not allowing neutral sources here (Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC))

That removal wasn't about non-neutral, it was about reliability. If the facts used from a a non-free source, The Latin Australian Times, are known to be wrong, why should anything else be assumed to be right. It was not a minor error if their published origin of Crossfit was the error, something that Glassman himself has talked about. It appears that the article in question was just poorly researched. The non-neutral source Dammitkevin was referring to was a reprint in a blog run by the media department of CrossFit. Not only is the usage of primary sources say this is exactly when such a type of source could be used, I went so far as to find a replacement anyways to fix the issue. So please don't assume anything about how we edit here. Yosemiter (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing photos published in news sources about crossfit

Yosemiter This print and online news source The Latin Australian Times published an article about crossfit, the photos have been released to be used on wikipedia. one under content of Lisencee and the other regarding Wall walks for handstand walking practice, this is written in the news article. These photos relate to the wikipedia content the are from a news source(Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC))

@Australianblackbelt: I removed them because they do not contribute anything new to the article. One is just of a guy practicing a movement, a movement used for strengthening the shoulders and core but would rarely ever be used in a WOD other than skill work. To have listed where it was would be incorrect and atypical. The second was just a picture of a guy winning a local competition in a gym. No reason for its inclusion.

I also question that source itself, because if it does in fact say that Crossfit was first designed for soldiers in the military, then it is 100% wrong, thus making it unreliable. Crossfit was first deigned by Glassman in Santa Cruz, California, as a fitness program incorporating his gymnastics background. He was then recruited to design the physical training for the Santa Cruz Police Department in the late 1990s where he refined. It got popular with the military in the early 2000s because of the low amount of equipment needed and the online availability of the workouts. Yosemiter (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yosemiter The walk walk is very common much more than tire flips, why dont you download a copy of the souce for $1.55 see it for your self https://www.magzter.com/AU/Latin-Australian/Latin-Australian/Politics/ http://latinaustralian.com.au/ if the news source has a minor mistake according to you it doesn't dismiss it as a source(Australianblackbelt (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC))

@Australianblackbelt: Perhaps common in some gyms, but having been a practitioner for nearly a decade and gone to dozens of gyms around the US, this is a skill and conditioning movement, not a regular thing to be done in a metcon (which is more or less CF's bread and butter). I do not disagree about the tire flips, though 5 to 10 years ag,o tire flips were definitely a thing we did about once a month (along with other outdated movements such as sledge hammer swings). Personally I would be fine removing booth images. Yosemiter (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Yosemiter with pretty much all the points raised. The pictures don't add any value and I've never seen anything suggesting that CrossFit was developed for the military. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, @Australianblackbelt:, you've been reverted twice. Now we're discussing. Please stop adding without consensus. See WP:BRD. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Australianblackbelt: In case you are curious, here is a good write up on the actual origins of CrossFit. However, it is from a CrossFit-related magazine, making both a non-independent and semi-unreliable source due to its bias which is why I would never use it as reference on wikipedia. But it was created more or less as a compilation of several discussions, lectures that Glassman has given over the years, and from the book Learning to Breathe Fire: The Rise of Crossfit and the Primal Future of Fitness; making it more accurate than some article that stated CrossFit was designed for the military. Yosemiter (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting thanks for that(Australianblackbelt (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC))

Yosemiter I can get a great photographer to release an awesome photo he took of an athlete doing a kettle bell swing, what do recon?(Australianblackbelt (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC))

@Australianblackbelt: I think with proper sourcing and links it would be fine here. With that said, we also don't want to go crazy with images due to some locales not having great download speeds and images severely hinder viewing pages. If you get a good image of a kettlebell swing, I think you could replace the image of the tire flip with the new one. (Because as you said, they are no longer very common in typical workouts.) Yosemiter (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yosemiter Excellent point about the download speed that never occurred to me seeing as in Australia we have great internet service.... Thanks for pointing that out.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC))

Yosemiter I have the kettlebell swing photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maurice_Kettle_Bell_Swings.jpg (Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC))

@Yosemiter: The photo of the 2 athletes are holding on the bar like the first image of the female in orange, I can have a photo approved of 2 athletes doing something different in the games.. what exercise do you think would be good? (Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC))

@Australianblackbelt: I'm not quite sure what you are asking. The kipping pull-up image currently in use is fine as is, very clear that it is different from a strict pull-up. Showing two people doing one might make it look more complicated then it needs to be. By "photo approved of 2 athletes doing something different in the games", I am really not sure. If it is a picture specifically from the CrossFit Games, then it would belong there. If it is a Games event/movement done somewhere else, I would not add it. This page should probably just stick to the common CrossFit-specific movements and probably do not need images of other common exercises (American swings and kipping pullups being two such examples that are not common in other exercise routines). Other CF-specific (or at least predominantly more common) movements would probably be double-unders, muscle ups, and full-range of motion CF burpees; all of which are a bit hard to have still images of. Yosemiter (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: ok understood, what I meant by approved was OTRS approved(Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC))

Girevoy

Is girevoy sports the same as kettlebell? If so, then say so. If not, then don't link to it. - KitchM (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on CrossFit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

protect Photos

There was about 4 photos on this article, I’ve added one back but can people start undoing it when they are deleted cause deletion of photos is also vandalism. Australianblackbelt (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Updates to "see also"

Hi,

I'm pretty new to doing this so just thought I would add a few "see also" links. Thought it was weird that it references aerobics and not weightlifting for example.

Olympic weightlifting

Power lifting

Kettle bell lifting

Thanks, Alex

Escape domain (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Crossfit is a mixture of constantly varied movement based exercise done for time or repetition! The workout is HIIT based so it includes both Aerobic and Anaerobic pathways yes it includes weightlifting, running, gymnastics, and all of the above. Rajat samanta (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Crossfit Definition

Crossfit is Constantly varied functional movement executed at high intensity. Rajat samanta (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

That is their own promotional phrasing, not a definition. That is why it is explained and quoted in the CrossFit#Overview, but in general, it is one of many physical fitness programs so we use that in the first sentence so readers will understand better. Yosemiter (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Vote for Main image

I vote to use the photo File:Maurice Kettle Bell Swings.jpg as the main image because;
1. It is an example of a something that is not common in other exercise routines.
2. The photo was taken from a highly regarded crossfit photographer and was an effort to get released.
3. Photo has a notable person in it.
4. The other images are of exercises that are very difficult to capture on photo making it look like a person just at the gym doing regular exercises.

If there are no objections I will change the image later on.
Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Australianblackbelt: What do you mean by "main image"? If you mean in the infobox, I object. We should just add the logo there (which is just the name in a particular font, but it represents the Company better than any single picture of an exercise). If you mean "first picture used of an exercise used in CrossFit", I really don't care what order the three pictures are in.

I will say that the one you are nominating for whatever you are nominating it for seems to have a lesser quality or sharpness or something. I am not an image expert and my critique might not mean much, but the other two seem sharper or have more visual contrast or something else that makes them seem to "pop". Also, the Kipping Pull-Up is definitely a CrossFit-specific style of training (outside of gymnastics where it is used as a base movement for other things) and probably more-so than a kettlebell. I also strongly object to points 2 and 3, it reeks of WP:PROMO pushing. Yosemiter (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: and having Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in the caption is not WP:PROMO pushing?? If a person is notable he's notable period, it doesn't say which crossfit center he's training in I don't see why it Reeks. it's just a good photo. Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Australianblackbelt: By promo pushing, I mean points two and three seem like reasons to highlight one's own work and are unencyclopedic reasons for making one image more prominent than another. You created the page on the subject in the photo and you uploaded the photo, asking to highlight work seems suspicious as it seems you may have some outside connection with subject or just wish to promote your own work.

However, Point 1 is a good reason to promote an image, but as I said, Kipping Pull-Ups are probably just as, if not more-so, utilized in CF. KBs are certainly not unique to CF anymore than a pull up. Point 4 doesn't make much sense to me as all photos of any single CF exercise is just going to "look like a person just at the gym doing regular exercises" regardless of equipment used. A more complete image would probably be an image of a class doing something like Filthy Fifty with multiple people doing a bunch of various exercises. To me, that's CF.

I think the photo itself is fine and I do not care about the order of the three. Thank you for adding the logo to the infobox. Yosemiter (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kov819.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sammyd1018.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fy2072 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Fy2072 (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)