Forum Discussion

Roper · 23-01-2008 05:48PM

Dragan wrote: »

*sighs again*

Thats twice in one day now folks.

As i already said to Hanley, my point was not about justifying Colm in what he does. At the end of the day, on this Forum, i don't need to justify what anyone does.I just decide if they can do it or not.

Maybe you could stop with the *sighing* like you're talking to small children and think for a second that perhaps it was your original post that was flawed, not the responses to it. I object to your tone.

Dragan · 23-01-2008 05:51PM

Roper wrote: »

Maybe you could stop with the *sighing* like you're talking to small children and think for a second that perhaps it was your original post that was flawed, not the responses to it. I object to your tone.

Hmmm..... fair enough point Roper.

To be honest though i just can't see why people are finding it so hard to apply the arguments they are using about Colm talking about Crossfit a lot to themselves.

We all like to talk about what we're passionate about, no?

johnathan woss · 23-01-2008 08:26PM

Roper wrote: »

What I don't like about CF:
The cult-like nature and its right wingedness.
The use of CF literature to support CF
The anti-specialisation ethos. Some people have to or want to specialise.
Its dismissal of goals other than CF style of fitness. (ie. size or steady state cardio)

A good list, but to add two more;

The anti-intellectualism. To paraphrase glassman he doesn't care why it works he's just a fitness whore.
The idea that everyone who isn't a "crossfitter" either uses machines or is a long-distance runner. People have been training in this way for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

To give a bit of balance I gotta say the 21-15-9 rep scheme is brilliant.

Hanley · 23-01-2008 08:42PM

Dragan wrote: »

To be honest though i just can't see why people are finding it so hard to apply the arguments they are using about Colm talking about Crossfit a lot to themselves.

The first difference is, the majority of people who give adivce will talk about several different training styles. I know I do. You're argument that Colm pimping Crossfit (his business) is like me pimping Westside is completley flawed. I don't think I've recommended a westside approach to anyone here. Ever. Ive worked my system of training to suit my own needs, but am fully aware that it might not and probably won't suit someone elses. So I don't recommended it just because it's what I do.

Secondly, when I'm recommending training styles I'm not gonna alwyas pick the one I have a vested interest in. Obviously Colm believes in Crossfit, as you said the amount he has invested makes that clear. But to say he should be able to promote his business all the time simply because he believes in the training system is crazy.

Racing Flat · 23-01-2008 09:59PM

Great thread IMO and probably one that was needed.

Is this forum welcoming to newbies? My experience... started reading some of the forums that I am most interested in, athletics, soccer, signed up, made one or two posts there, then started to browse. Came across Fitness/Fitness Logs (wondered why is this not in sports? Question probably been answered a million times before here!) and read a few threads. My first impression was 'There's too much testosterone here' and then I wondered about roid rage...so was a bit more wary about posting here. My first proper post on this is below in response to a fellow looking for advice on how to look naked, to get down from nearly 16 stone. He was already doing some cardio and weights. Here is what I wrote...

"Good luck, Dullanhan. Doesn't really matter what you do, whether it be weights, cardio or other exercise - the key for weight loss would be to train aerobically ie get your heart rate up to 70-80% maximum and maintain this for at least 30mins at leats 3 times a week. There are ways to work out your max heart rate, but for most people, especially someone relatively new to an exercise regime, simple jogging or an exercise bike/cross trainer at an intensity that leaves you slightly out of breath will do fine. I am all for doing intense cardio to improve VO2 max and lactate threshold etc., but that's more important when you are actually fit and want to improve performance further. So for now, as long as you're getting out of breath for at least half an hour at least three times a week that's fine. May take you a while to build up to this so don't worry if you have to stop and walk initially. Soon you'll get to 30mins continuous 3 times a week and after that you'll be able to go for longer and more times a week. And the weight will fall off after a few weeks. I went from 14stone to 11stone after about 6months of jogging, gradually building up as above, simple as that, no better/quicker way to do it, just be consistent whichever exercise type you chose.
Again, good luck, stick at it and be sure to post up the after shots."

So although I am a runner, I didn't say 'Go running' even though it's my passion. I think if you always tell people to do the same thing be it because you are passionate about it or have a vested interest, either way it's going to weaken your stance - makes you appear narrow minded. Anyway IMO it was sound advice for the OP, so I was a bit taken aback by the reply below...

"Quote:
Doesn't really matter what you do, whether it be weights, cardio or other exercise - the key for weight loss would be to train aerobically ie get your heart rate up to 70-80% maximum and maintain this for at least 30mins at leats 3 times a week.
We've really got to dispell this myth.

For a start, MHR is an estimate, and not a terribly accurate one when it comes to intensity. Hydration levels, stress/excitement levels, temperature can all effect the heart rate, to name some variables.

Secondly, at low intensity a higher percentage of your energy will come from fat. But, at higher intensity you'll consume more energy and more fat.

Take two people working out for 30 minutes steady state work. One at 50% VO2 max (approx. estimation of 65% MHR), one at 70% VO2 max (80% MHR). the fat kcal burned per litre of O2 for A will be 2.43, for B it's 1.96.

Total fat kcals burned will be 73 and 82 resepctively. Higher percentage, lower total."

So, my opinion of exercising at 70-80% was slain as a 'myth' (and by a moderator at that!) but then the example given to dispel my 'myth' of working at 70-80% the respondent demonstrated that working out at 80% is better than 65%

. Wasn't I advocating working out at 80%? A better way to dispel my myth would have been to say that exercising at 95% uses more energy than 80%, but my reply would be that you could only keep up 95% for a few minutes, whereas you could keep at 80% for 3 hours, so you can do more work at 80% and therefore overall use more absolute energy regardless of which type uses the greater percentage. Another time 70-80% max HR was roped in with 'low intensity' exercise to rubbish it when I had actually referred to it as aerobic. It might be low relative to 90% but 70-80% is still a decent workout. So I got the impression that people just didn't have any mass in aerobic zone exercising so rubbished the posts without reading the posts fully, again narrow minded. Science was used selectively to back up these points to dispel the myth...again a narrow way to argue something.

So initially I didn't feel welcomed, but after a few more posts, my views seemed to get more accepted - it was almost as if I had to prove myself and once I did I was listened to a bit more (is this the testosterone thing again?), so now I find it fine and welcoming but maybe not as a newbie...

Racing Flat · 23-01-2008 10:11PM

g'em wrote: »

In all fairness to Colm, while I don't think that CrossFit is the be-all and end-all of Fitness, he's one poster who absolutely goes out of his way to answer queries.

Agree with this 100% and it's much appreciated.

g'em · 23-01-2008 10:32PM

Racing Flat wrote: »

Came across Fitness/Fitness Logs (wondered why is this not in sports? Question probably been answered a million times before here!)

um, actually it hasn't!!! I guess this forum was originally intended as an umbrella area for all aspects of 'Fitness' encompassing health and wellbeing?

Racing Flat wrote:

My first impression was 'There's too much testosterone here' and then I wondered about roid rage...

Ah jeebus

Y'see this is what bugs me. I've become a little immune to the Test attitude floating around here so I tend not to notice so much. But every so often threads pop up that reek of it, and while that attitude is often something that goes hand-in-hand with lifting it makes me a little uncomfortable when it gets into borderline aggression. And more than anything I know it a) perpetuates the myth that lifters are roid-fuelled eejits and b) really stops women from posting here more often.

I don't think it would be tactical to try and rid the forum of the Test element either though, as a bit of aggression, a bit of fighting attitude, a bit of rage is what fuels and fires up a lot of people who give this game their heart and soul. It comes down to a balancing act I guess...

Racing Flat wrote:

So, my opinion of exercising at 70-80% was slain as a 'myth' (and by a moderator at that!) but then the example given to dispel my 'myth' of working at 70-80% the respondent demonstrated that working out at 80% is better than 65%. Wasn't I advocating working out at 80%? A better way to dispel my myth would have been to say that exercising at 95% uses more energy than 80%, but my reply would be that you could only keep up 95% for a few minutes, whereas you could keep at 80% for 3 hours, so you can do more work at 80% and therefore overall use more absolute energy regardless of which type uses the greater percentage. Another time 70-80% max HR was roped in with 'low intensity' exercise to rubbish it when I had actually referred to it as aerobic. It might be low relative to 90% but 70-80% is still a decent workout. So I got the impression that people just didn't have any mass in aerobic zone exercising so rubbished the posts without reading the posts fully, again narrow minded. Science was used selectively to back up these points to dispel the myth...again a narrow way to argue something.

I'm a Scientist, and even I can't follow a lot of that

If you guys want to discuss the finer points of heart rate percentages, then cool and fair play. But this is the 10%, the details, that most people neither want to know or need to understand. I completely understand you wanted to argue over a point but understand that the scientific theory goes over a lot of people's heads.

And just a note on your issue of being called up on it by a Moderator - we keep the forums clean and tidy and maintain peace: we are NOT made Mods based on our information of any particular subject. Sure, a bit of knowledge about topics makes it easier to be able to objectively control a thread but we're not chosen for our expertise (I'd be long out of a Modship by now if that was the case

). Plus, we're only Mods on the forums we run, so on this forum Colm is just another poster. In Personal Issues or Legal Discussion I'm just another poster.

Racing Flat wrote:

So initially I didn't feel welcomed, but after a few more posts, my views seemed to get more accepted - it was almost as if I had to prove myself and once I did I was listened to a bit more (is this the testosterone thing again?), so now I find it fine and welcoming but maybe not as a newbie...

It's quite possible you did have to prove yourself, although that may or may not have been a conscious thing on the other posters' parts. When you enter into any community (as weird as it sounds the forum is definitely a community of sorts - some of us know each other in real life, others we only know on the internet, but we "see" each other virtually every day and we're all joined by the common theme of Fitness - that and we're all nnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrddddddddsssssss

) so when someone comes along it may take one or two (or more) posts for people to get the feel of who you are and what you want. So far, so good, some lovely contributions!

We all get frustrated answering the same questions time and time again, and the "regulars" often go through waves of helpfulness - I guess right now Colm is on a posting buzz and he's taking much of the post queries. I don't agree with everything he says, but for the sake of harmony I'd often let things slide so as not to de-rail a thread or confuse the OP. Again it comes down to the OP getting of their arse moving = infinitely better than worrying over whether the 80% or 90% max HR is optimal. That's not to say those debates aren't valid - they bloody are, but if they were hammered out in each and every thread it would become just as tedious as the generic answers?

Perhaps a different tactic will be taken after this thread though, it'll be interesting to see!

Racing Flat · 23-01-2008 10:50PM

Again, I agree with you Gem. Will be interesting to see if there is any change after this....I don't think it will...
Apologies if I'm too scientific at times. Wouldn't normally be my way, maybe I'm mistaken, but I think normally my advice would be fairly simple but if someone then comes back for more info, or someone else disagrees with it, I try to back my argument up using theory or evidence which is usually of a scientific area as I have studied, worked and conducted research into exercise physiology, anatomy, biomechanics, rehabilitation, so it's what I know. But I agree the science may go over peoples heads or bore them, so will try to keep it more relevant to all.;)

FiannaGym.com · 24-01-2008 12:45AM

Wow.

I used to be involved in threads like this.

That was a long time ago. When I first started training I used to read books, magazines, read stuff online, engage in various debates online and test loads of different things for myself.

The thing is, that all takes time. Sure, if "fitness" is your main goal you may have plenty of time for this. But "fitness" is something Im not really interested in.

This debate, starts and ends with how you define fitness. Crossfit, and by extension Colm, (I cant beleive I just called Zen that) are pretty clear on their definition of fitness, and sure, if your seeking fitness as defined by crossfit then its definately the key. I'm sure some of you guys see fitness in a different light. So like I said (and roper eluded to this early in the thread) the discussion begins and ends with your perception of fitness.

Now like I said, Im interested in athletic performace, not at all with "being in shape" or being "fit" (although in my world I use those terms interchangably with being able to perform in my athletic arena). Rather than invest the vast time and resources I used to years ago I now just so crossfit style work outs and try and eat paleo.

No other combination is as simple or as effective (results wise) or efficent (time wise) for general, nonspecific or athletic goals. Of course if I want to be a long distance runner thats one thing (but we all know what Socretes had to say about those) or if I wanted to be WSM or a probodybuilder.

Also, watch out. Threads like this emerged on the Self Defence / Martial Arts boards right before all the older styles were swept away by new Mixed Martial Arts styles. So make sure, what ever your argument, your arguing because you have something useful to say, and not because your under threat.

Otherwise... keep ripping into O'Reilly as hard as you can!!

P.S. Anyone on here to thinks Colm isnt in good shape, and they are, should try roll with him sometime.

Peace

Hanley · 24-01-2008 01:43AM

Roper wrote: »

What I like about CF:
The bodybuilding ethos is fine, but more or less useless for the average person. BBers don't spend hours lifting 20kgs on the bench press machine, they lift savage heavy weights to get their size. But the BBing model has filtered down into a half baked commercial version and is now the one taught to fitness professionals. CF challenges that. That is good.
CF promotes education about the compound movements and lifts. Again, good.
What I don't like about CF:
The cult-like nature and its right wingedness.
The use of CF literature to support CF
The anti-specialisation ethos. Some people have to or want to specialise.
Its dismissal of goals other than CF style of fitness. (ie. size or steady state cardio)

Well said. I read a NY times article from '05 says Glassman doesn't even do the crossfit workouts anymore. Anyone care to confirm?

Also I've come across a fair few instances of Crossfitters suffering rhabdomyolysis.. Which for those who don't know is when muscle fibers breakdowns and release myoglobin into the blood stream and can result quite quickly in kidney failure. This is a result of intense exercise, and is very typical of what you'd expect in a crossfit program when you're constantly trying to beat the clock.

Another MAJOR issue I have is something which I read by Glassman...

"The needs of Olympic athletes and our grandparents differ by degree, not kind. One needs functional competency to win gold medals, and one needs functional competency to stay out of the nursing home."

Tbh I think this is complete and utter sh!te and it really sounds like he's talking out of his ass. Alot "crossfitters", and to be honest I would say the majoirty of them, respond with almost a religious fervor in defence of the system. It really is like they've been brainwashed into believing it's the only way. That is one of the things that annoys me the most about the system. It's created such an elitist group of arrogant closed minded people when it comes to fitness.

Odysseus · 24-01-2008 01:44AM

Firstly as a long distance runner I know little of CF, however, as a rule if I see just one opinion being put out as the ultimate truth I generally swicht off, and I am dubious of people offering their way as the only way, I have noticed with Colm that he tends to start posting in places where he may get referrals, when he was offering life coaching he took to posting in PI, that appears to have stopped know, though I am open to correction.

My own opinion is to offer an opinion and it is merely that, partly as I don't have the time to get into tag posting. I try to post in PI as some of the posts are of professional interest to me, I have never taken a referral from anyone on boards or offered myself, merely my own ethics and nothing else. I gerenally switch off when people speak of the only way to do things, I stick to the old idea that doubt is associated with neurosis and certainity with psychosis, and no I am NOT saying anyone here is psychotic.

When I have been ask for my professional veiw in pms I have always done my best to offer a list of options from other viewpoints, something I can't really do in this forum as I'm not a fitness profession. With saying that I would like to acknowledge that Colm has spent a lot of time with trying to help people here, but I have also noticed that this is a recent thing, since he started CF Ireland maybe. So my thing here has always been take what is useful and helpful to me, [and thanks to all those who have helped me on my journey] and leave the rest, you may come back to it some day or may not.

Two last things I hope this makes sense as it has been a long and difficult day, and because of that excuse any typos as I just too Fcuked to check it for them.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 24-01-2008 08:47AM

FiannaGym.com wrote: »

P.S. Anyone on here to thinks Colm isnt in good shape, and they are, should try roll with him sometime.

What a stupid thing to say :rolleyes:

I think I'll wonder over to the darts forum and challenge anyone who thinks they can throw to come to Judo with me.

t-ha · 24-01-2008 10:11AM

FiannaGym.com wrote: »

Rather than invest the vast time and resources I used to years ago I now just so crossfit style work outs and try and eat paleo.

No other combination is as simple or as effective (results wise) or efficent (time wise) for general, nonspecific or athletic goals.

Hey Fianna - I'm afraid you've just wandered across the line into dogma there with that comment. Are you 100% sure that nothing that exists currently/or that ever shall exist will ever be as effective as a paleo diet and crossfit style workouts for athletic goals. Sorry if this seems pedantic but it's exactly this kind of statement that I don't like because it leads to arguments instead of discussion - I can't have a mere difference of opinion with you now, I have to directly insinuate that you're wrong because you used absolutes.

I've given paleo a fair trial & it's not for me. I'm doing a PhD as well as training and I need my brain and body functioning perfectly & I notice straight away when they're not - and on paleo they don't, it's not bad but it could be better. I have a much more effective diet myself, which I also consider to be very simple.

FiannaGym.com wrote: »

Also, watch out. Threads like this emerged on the Self Defence / Martial Arts boards right before all the older styles were swept away by new Mixed Martial Arts styles. So make sure, what ever your argument, your arguing because you have something useful to say, and not because your under threat.

Sound advice - though having tried CrossFit 'style' workouts (and liked them - don't get me wrong here) as well as many others I'll stick no having zero restricitions on my workouts beyond what I want to achieve & how I think I can best do that.

Seems about time for some kind of huge boards.ie experiment!!

g'em · 24-01-2008 10:14AM

Ok, this is good, I think we're getting a point here.

As much as I don't like agreeing with him :rolleyes: Hanley hit the the nail on the head with the "religious fervour" comment he made about CF - that's specifically the element I really don't like about, which in my mind FiannaGym.com (howdy!!) only strengthened with the following remark:

FiannaGym.com wrote:

No other combination [of CF and a paleo diet] is as simple or as effective (results wise) or efficent (time wise) for general, nonspecific or athletic goals.

Meh, BS. There's plenty of other simple and effective methods, they just aren't as de rigeur as CF is right now. But the other methods aren't as well-known or as neat and tidy as CF is so they aren't discussed as much. Yet

I have no major problems with the CF workouts, I've tried them, use them sporadically and they're great fun. But just because I like apples doesn't mean I feelt hat the only way to stay fit and healthy is to eat one every day, four times a day with cider on the side.

So for the purposes of the board for a while now CF has filled a niche - it's a ready-made program for n00bs or someone looking for a change to try. It encompasses workouts and a complimentary diet plan that's tried and tested and has many, many supporters. But it looks like CF's 15 seconds of fame are over and there's a bit of a backlash against it. So, what are we going to do about it?

Here's a question for the antagonists of CF:
Is it just CrossFit itself that "wobbles your tits" (I love it Mairt

) or is it the personal promotion of Colm's CrossFit business that's irking people?

If it's the former, then the simple answer is to provide alternatives. If Colm (or any other CF promoter) advises CF style workouts and the like and you don't agree with that, then suggest something different. But quit simply complaining about it, all that does is create ill-feeling and apathy.

However, if it's the latter, and people have issues with personal promotion of business then that has much wider implications. If we put a clamp down on personally beneficial advertising that means no more sig-links, no more Supplement Offer threads, no more free e-books, no more equipment specials - it will be a profit-free zone for everyone and myself and the other Mods would have to delete any and all posts that elude to business promotion.

So... what's it to be?

Hanley · 24-01-2008 12:28PM

Mairt wrote: »

What a stupid thing to say :rolleyes:

I think I'll wonder over to the darts forum and challenge anyone who thinks they can throw to come to Judo with me.

Haha love it. Like I said, religious fervor.

The problem as I see it isn't the advertising per se. It's the uncompromising approach to how it is undertaken. Nearly every thread with someone asking advice has either a link to the Crossfit homepage, Simplefit, The Paleo Diet or an invitation to come down to Colm's own gym.

The difference with the other "advertisers", and we'll say that this is primarily Jon and Mickk is that they don't pounce on every supplement or equipment thread and start linking their own products. And to be fair, even if they did do this to an extent, they've been more than good enoguh to warrant it considering how generous they've been to many on this board, at least in my opinion. They've gained customer loyalty and in the process are recommended all the time. I think this is because they're doing a good job selling a product or service that people actually want. Perhaps if more people were interested in actually doing Crossfit it wouldn't have to be constantly jammed down out throats. Just a thought...

The thing that really confuses me tho is that how can Crossfit be the only way when I thought Isometerics were the best way every invented to get in shape. AND they take less time and are supported by hundreds of thousands of journal articles. Maybe they should combine their ideas and take over the world... Isofit, or Crossmetrics. Ya know, something snappy like that

Racing Flat · 24-01-2008 12:29PM

g'em wrote: »

Is it just CrossFit itself that "wobbles your tits" (I love it Mairt ) or is it the personal promotion of Colm's CrossFit business that's irking people?

For me this isn't about Cross Fit ore personal promotion, but about putting forward one and only one approach to getting fit. Could just as easily be runnning or weight-lifting we're talking about. Somebody said this has turned into Cross fit against the world but that's not the case. Practically everyone on the 'anti-CrossFit' brigade have said Cross Fit is fine, just that people have to be open minded and consider other approaches also.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 24-01-2008 12:50PM

g'em wrote: »

So... what's it to be?

Lets talk about my wobbling tits!..:D

Speaking only for myself now. I could careless whats marketed here, as I'm not a buyer. So if someone wants to buy into Crossfit, so be it. But let them be informed, Colm has stated many times that there's no short cuts to fitness, short cuts being the longest way etc yet some of the marketing of CF seem's geared towards making the newbie think they can achieve something in twenty minutes (crossfitting) that in another system/gym will take hours of busting a gut.

Plus Hanley has raised a very good point re. Crossfitters suffering rhabdomyolysis. I've taken that and done just a summery google and it seem's as though there are legitimate concern's regarding its safety.

Fiannagym.com seem's to think this thread is a personal attack on Colm. I don't think it is, I'd be very uncomfortable with that, as I am with any sort of bullying. However Colm has set himself up with Crossfit and has promoted it strongly, so he must be prepared for any criticism of it, good or bad.

As Odysseus said, when it wasn't Crossfit Colm was pushing it was his life coaching on P.I. and I seem to remember if was pushed in the same way Crossfit is, and it annoy's people.

But you know what G'em, its Crossfit now & if the internet & this forum was around twenty year's ago it would have been Jane Fonda video workouts. I think even Jade Goodie had her fiftheen minutes of fitness fame!.

I think the OP just opened a can of worm's which was going to open someday and let some people vent their annoyance at CF and its marketing methods here thats all.

Sorry I can't articulate my side of the debate as good as some here

So I'm off to bed (just falling off the end of my second wind after pulling a 12hr night shift).

BossArky · 24-01-2008 01:05PM

g'em wrote: »

However, if it's the latter, and people have issues with personal promotion of business then that has much wider implications. If we put a clamp down on personally beneficial advertising that means no more sig-links, no more Supplement Offer threads, no more free e-books, no more equipment specials - it will be a profit-free zone for everyone and myself and the other Mods would have to delete any and all posts that elude to business promotion.

So... what's it to be?

How about having a "Promotions" thread made sticky, whereby people can post their gym, supplement & ebook deals, etc?

It would keep everything in the same place and ensure that the rest of the forum is not cluttered with the odd bits and pieces of propanganda which turns people off.

Edwardius · 24-01-2008 01:07PM

Hanley wrote: »

Also I've come across a fair few instances of Crossfitters suffering rhabdomyolysis.. Which for those who don't know is when muscle fibers breakdowns and release myoglobin into the blood stream and can result quite quickly in kidney failure. This is a result of intense exercise, and is very typical of what you'd expect in a crossfit program when you're constantly trying to beat the clock.

Rhabdo effects people not used to intense exercise who end up destroying themselves on consecutive days with the higher power workouts. The risk of this is known, acknowledged and documented by crossift themselves. It's nasty but avoidable.
See here:

http://www.crossfit.com/journal/library/33_05_killer_workouts.pdf

Apologies for another crossfit link but Rhabdo isn't something they're hiding from.

Malteaser! · 24-01-2008 01:10PM

BossArky wrote: »

How about having a "Promotions" thread made sticky, whereby people can post their gym, supplement & ebook deals, etc?

It would keep everything in the same place and ensure that the rest of the forum is not cluttered with the odd bits and pieces of propanganda which turns people off.

I dunno if that's such a good idea.

Would it mean that any person can just come on and get some free advertising for their service/product?? Or would there be some sort of criteria before you can post in the thread ?? And if there is how is decided?? Like is it done by post count or the amount of help that person has offered before etc. It just seems a bit messy.

BossArky · 24-01-2008 01:25PM

Malteaser! wrote: »

I dunno if that's such a good idea.

Would it mean that any person can just come on and get some free advertising for their service/product?? Or would there be some sort of criteria before you can post in the thread ?? And if there is how is decided?? Like is it done by post count or the amount of help that person has offered before etc. It just seems a bit messy.

No. The blatant stuff cut be binned as per usual.

The other stuff deemed appropriate (i.e. the stuff which dosen't get banned at the moment) could be cut and pasted into this new thread so there is a central repository.

Probably a good idea to ban comments in it too.

e.g.
Post 1 - new ebook ... pm me for details
Post 2 - 25% discount on gym membership for boards.ie members this month
Post 3 - all whey half price

etc....

I don't see how it could be an messier than currently.

Colm_OReilly · 24-01-2008 01:34PM

Mairt,

To come on here and call me arrogant and then say it's not personal!?

Mickoo,

Apology accepted. Thank you.

If this was a discussion on the merits of programs, backed up with evidence
it might be useful. However, I don't see counter arguments based on data or experimental, I see arguments based on personality and preference. As such talking about the merits of a program based on this is talking on two different levels in my opinion. The CF thread started by Racing Flat was an example of a legitimate conversation on the merits of the program, however very little people had an interest in that.

However, I'll talk about myself. I'm excitable, and I genuinely do want to help people.

For all my overzealousness, I apologise. I was told about CF years ago by Fiannagym, but didn't think I could do it. I was told by The Shane about it for months, but still dodged it. Once I took the plunge, it was like Charlton Hestonin Soylent Green - "We've got to tell everybody about it!" I couldn't believe I wasn't on this before.

So if you'd like to discuss the merits/demerits of any training system, using shared agreed definitions of what we're trying to achieve, and using measurable, observable, repeatable data cool, let's start a thread and improve everyone's fitness.

But, you've made your point about me. Now stop it. I'm sensitive. Please.

And if you do genuinely have a problem with me promoting CF or it's methodologies feel free to email Nicole (at) crossfit (dot) com. They're the people who approve of how I represent CF and if they feel I'm doing a bad job they can fire me.

Scramble · 24-01-2008 02:23PM

I'd like to hear more alternatives to CrossFit or debates about the programming put forward as well.... Barring Hanley's mention of some of the overtraining pitfalls to watch out for, the bulk of the rest of the criticism seems to be personal stuff levelled at Colm (which smacks more of begrudgery than anything else, to be honest).

g'em · 24-01-2008 02:56PM

Mairt wrote: »

But you know what G'em, its Crossfit now & if the internet & this forum was around twenty year's ago it would have been Jane Fonda video workouts. I think even Jade Goodie had her fiftheen minutes of fitness fame!.

Absolutely - like with everything different ideas come in and out of fashion, but for whatever reason, the chemistry of the board right now dictates that CF seems will bear the brunt of current objections.

Oh and hope you got some quality rest

Scramble wrote: »

I'd like to hear more alternatives to CrossFit or debates about the programming put forward as well....

Bingo.

One way to get that going is to work on the Fitness links sticky at the top of the page, so if anyone knows of something good, put it up!

Scramble wrote:

Barring Hanley's mention of some of the overtraining pitfalls to watch out for, the bulk of the rest of the criticism seems to be personal stuff levelled at Colm (which smacks more of begrudgery than anything else, to be honest).

This certainly isn't intended as a witchhunt against Colm, and so far, so constructive (I think!).

The FitnessDock · 24-01-2008 03:02PM

I think this is the NY times article about Crossfit that Hanley was referring to in an earlier post:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/fashion/thursdaystyles/22Fitness.html

BaZmO* · 24-01-2008 03:55PM

BossArky wrote: »

Of course I jest. My newbie comments come from the vibe I have picked up when checking out this forum on and off from the past 9 years, before many of the current posters were around.

Sorry to be pedantic but the Fitness Forum has only been around since around 2003. I know this because it only started around the time I joined Boards.

Anyway, my 2c.
The only problem I see with the Fitness Forum is that when a topic is started and say a newbie asks a question it doesn't take very long before it all starts getting ridiculously complicated, which can all get quite bewildering for someone only starting out. The good advice then gets lost in all the technicalities.

But I suppose it's like that in most forums. I've asked a simple question in the likes of Computers and then been absolutely bamboozled with techy jargon and the like.

Advice and discussion is great but a lot of the time it's not really that relevant to the OP. Look at this thread for example!

BossArky · 24-01-2008 03:58PM

BaZmO* wrote: »

Sorry to be pedantic but the Fitness Forum has only been around since around 2003. I know this because it only started around the time I joined Boards.

I did think about going back to edit the post when I realised that after clicking submit. However it wasn't too important in the grand scheme of things. Egg on my face

BaZmO* · 24-01-2008 04:17PM

BossArky wrote: »

I did think about going back to edit the post when I realised that after clicking submit. However it wasn't too important in the grand scheme of things. Egg on my face

I only remembered the start date because I had only just gotten into going to the gym at the time it seemed to stick in my mind.

Oh, and that egg, is it part of your daily protein intake?

Reyman · 24-01-2008 04:36PM

g'em wrote: »

Ah jeebus Y'see this is what bugs me. I've become a little immune to the Test attitude floating around here so I tend not to notice so much. But every so often threads pop up that reek of it, and while that attitude is often something that goes hand-in-hand with lifting it makes me a little uncomfortable when it gets into borderline aggression. And more than anything I know it a) perpetuates the myth that lifters are roid-fuelled eejits and b) really stops women from posting here more often.

I don't think it would be tactical to try and rid the forum of the Test element either though, as a bit of aggression, a bit of fighting attitude, a bit of rage is what fuels and fires up a lot of people who give this game their heart and soul. It comes down to a balancing act I guess...

I agree there are a few guys (no women) here who tend to be unnecessarily aggressive. And they usually don't help their cases by being so over the top. Having said that they provide a lot of useful information and are a definite addition to the forum.

I'm inclined to think of 'Dragan' who in his day was like a young 'rhinoceros' and the terror of everyone here - he is now a 'measured assured diplomat' . So let us not fear - most of these guys will move on to being ' elder statesmen' given time

Lothaar · 24-01-2008 04:37PM

I read this forum a lot and I never once thought there was anything wrong with Colm's posts. When somebody asks a question there are usually plenty of suggestions from a variety of sources, but Colm is the only one to mention crossfit.

He believes in it and believes it will help the OP. In most cases, the OP isn't very experienced, unlike the people who seem to have taken issue with Colm.

Result: the OP gets a variety of good suggestions.

WTF is the problem? Jesus.

Forum Discussion

Comments