Win $250,000 this summer just* by being physically fit

[NukeMarine]

**EDIT: This is not an advertisement, though it kind of reads like one, so let me preface it. There may be one or two people that read this forum that CrossFit and few more that are aware of the workout routine. Any that follow the results of the CrossFit games know that no one on this forum has any real chance of being crowned the best. (discuss CrossFit and it's method of defining fitness as how well you are in strength, speed, agility, endurance, stamina, accuracy, flexibility, and power)

 

The main purpose of the thread is to show:

 

1. There's a competition called CrossFit Games starting with sectionals in March, regionals in May and the final games in July. The producers of this claims it's a legit competition for the title "World Most Physically Fit Person" (discuss if such a thing is possible, and if this competition is doing that.)

 

2. To try out for the sectionals, one has to perform a pre determined workout while videotaping herself or himself. That video is submitted on YouTube for verication. This is done once a week for six weeks, with six different workouts. I don't think anybody is charged for it (discuss if this makes for a legit claim that millions if not billions have the potential to tryout for this game).

 

3. Your score is based on how you did against the other people did in each week's workout. So, if you submit a video on week one and 590 people's video did better than you, you score 591. If on week 2 your results were beat by 248 other people you score 249 points for week two with a combined score of (591+249)= 840. If you are the best on week three, you score one point with a total of 841. At the end of six weeks, the top 600 scores will be selected to go to compete against each other in person at one of twelve different regionals (discuss if using different workouts each week and this scoring method is a viable way of finding the best overall 600 fittest people)

 

4. Likely at regionals (twelve events across US and Europe), 60 people compete against each other to find the top 4 people to send to the finals. These are likely multiple workouts over two days scored similarly ie how many did better than you determines your individual score for each event. (discuss if it's fair for some to have to travel far to compete at regionals).

 

5. At the finals, the top 50 people compete against each other in many strenious workouts. Each workout event gives a score based on how you do compared to everyone else. This is spread over three days in the heat of California summer.

 

6. The winner (both male and female) after all this is given the title "World's Fittest Person" and awarded $250,000 in addition to whatever else sponsors care to offere. (discuss if such a large purse will encourage non-CrossFitters to try out, and if "World's Fittest" is a legitimate title).

 

Hopefully, this brings about better discussion and looks nothing like an advertisement now.

[stevepole]

edit: Much better. :thumbup:

[NukeMarine]

Thanks for unlocking. Hopefully the edit allows for better discussion. I think CrossFit is a great workout routine, and I do think the CrossFit Games is a legitimate way to determine the most physically fit.

 

Oh yeah: DO NOT DO ARM CURLS IN THE SQUAT RACK!!!

[assassin_696]

CrossFit's intense stuff, I have a lot of time for those workouts and the philosophy behind it. Will it determine the physically fittest person alive? Pretty hard to say, I can't think of anything else that gives a better all round representation of strength, aerobic fitness and balance/coordination etc. But it's got to depend entirely on how you define fitness, because as fit as an amateur who does CF daily workouts to a high standard would be, they still wouldn't be able to touch someone like a Tour de France rider for stamina and VO2 max. Basically, specialisation of top athletes in their sports means that they would be able to destroy CFitters in many of the individual challenges, but possibly not all round.

 

I'm possibly biased, but I'd wager that the top rowers in the world would be as strong, balanced, flexible and have superior cardio to the winner of the CF games, just as an example. For sure the winner will be insanely fit, but it's hard to see them reaching the level of the world's best athletes with dedicated coaches, nutrition and tailored training programs with just lots of WOD's.

[Vulxai]

This is an interesting site. No way in [cabbage] I'll win, most likely won't even try out, but he does seem pretty helpful, and can give one something to shoot for.

[NukeMarine]

Believe it or not, but a gold medalist decathlete was invited to participate in last year's CrossFit games. Now, decathletes are very, very physically fit people but this guy's coach turned down the offer. Reason being, he though the decathlete would not be able to handle the intensity required to do well at such an event. It's not an insult to the decathlete's ability, just that CrossFit Games offer up really serious events that can literally kill you if you did not prepare yourself.

 

Consider this event called "Long Helen":

 

For time (22 min cap):

Run 1,200 meters

63 kettlebell swings (55 pounds, swing from below the knees to up above your head)

36 pull-ups

Run 800 meters

42 kettlebell swings

24 pull-ups

Run 400 meters

21 kettlebell swings

12 pull-ups

 

Followed immediately by having 90 seconds to lift the most weight you can overhead. The winner did the long Helen in 18 minutes, then lifted 285 pounds over his head. Now, 285 pounds is NOTHING to a professional weight lifter. However, such a specialist would never had been able to complete the long Helen. Likewise, a decathlete might be able to do Long Helen to completion, but not have the upper body strength to put up over 200 pounds. A specialist like Lance Armstrong would not even be able to do either (can he even do 72 pull ups?).

 

To put it in Runescape terms, imagine a fight between someone with 99 atk using an uber 99 atk weapon (promethian saber), but 1 in all others going against a guy with 78 atk, str, range, magic, prayer, sum and def using level 70 weapons, armor and spells. Both have 99 hitpoints, and both have the same experience points in combat skills. One specialized in attack, the other is a well rounded. Who wins in 21 duels? On average, I'd wager the well rounded player. Now, if you limit them to the same weapon and no armor/spells/range etc, then the 99 attack will win out.

 

Oddly enough, CrossFit hits on this idea in that any person can get reasonably good fitness by spreading out the training in different areas. You must lift weights, do body weight exercises, do endurance type events such as running, rowing, swimming, bicycle. You must do things in short times and long times. You won't be outstanding in one thing (99 atk), but you'll be better on average at all things (78 across the board). Thing is, until recently, people only cared about the specialist which would be who can ride a bike the fastest, who can run 100m the fastest, who can put up the most weight, who can shoot the most 3 point shots in Basketball, etc. These CrossFit Games offer up a method to see who's better on average at many things physical.

[assassin_696]

Yeah I'm familiar with the philosophy, I'm just saying there might still be "specialised" top athletes who, by nature of their sport, are still general enough to outperform CF athletes. I used the example of rowing, because top olympic rowers have phenomenal aerobic, anaerobic and lactate thresholds by the very nature of the their sport. Boxers spring to mind too. I'm not denying that top CF's are extremely fit in many different aspects of fitness, I just think there are also still professional sports out there that require enough generalist training to be competitive.

 

My point about Lance Armstrong obviously wasn't that he'd be competitive in these kind of things, it's that how you define fitness still seems pretty subjective to me. You're going for the generalist option of someone who is very strong, balanced and has good cardio fitness within the parameters of these CF games is the fittest, but that's still artificial. CF is a good program in the way it's generalist but there's no way you could train for something like the Tour de France or the Marathon de Sables by doing it because it places different demands on the body. I could equally define fitness as "who can ride up Mt. Ventoux the fastest?" which is obviously no mean feat and then some Tour de France skinny hill climber could do it quicker than anyone.

 

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that fitness is subjective unless you're going to quantify it with something like VO2 max. Since it's subjective the winner of the CF games is no "fitter" than the winner of the heavyweight world title, they just have different types of fitness. Likewise even if you did choose to define fitness in a very general way there may still be some sportsmen (i.e. rowers) who could compete in those kind of games.

[NukeMarine]

Yeah I'm familiar with the philosophy, I'm just saying there might still be "specialised" top athletes who, by nature of their sport, are still general enough to outperform CF athletes. I used the example of rowing, because top olympic rowers have phenomenal aerobic, anaerobic and lactate thresholds by the very nature of the their sport. Boxers spring to mind too. I'm not denying that top CF's are extremely fit in many different aspects of fitness, I just think there are also still professional sports out there that require enough generalist training to be competitive.

 

My point about Lance Armstrong obviously wasn't that he'd be competitive in these kind of things, it's that how you define fitness still seems pretty subjective to me. You're going for the generalist option of someone who is very strong, balanced and has good cardio fitness within the parameters of these CF games is the fittest, but that's still artificial. CF is a good program in the way it's generalist but there's no way you could train for something like the Tour de France or the Marathon de Sables by doing it because it places different demands on the body. I could equally define fitness as "who can ride up Mt. Ventoux the fastest?" which is obviously no mean feat and then some Tour de France skinny hill climber could do it quicker than anyone.

 

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that fitness is subjective unless you're going to quantify it with something like VO2 max. Since it's subjective the winner of the CF games is no "fitter" than the winner of the heavyweight world title, they just have different types of fitness. Likewise even if you did choose to define fitness in a very general way there may still be some sportsmen (i.e. rowers) who could compete in those kind of games.

I would not doubt that some extremely good defensive end, decathlete, triathlete, soccer, etc could do well in CrossFit Games, but it would not happen without some months of preparation. I think one lady, who was a finnish polevaulter, did extremely well after only 4 months of practice. Yet even she was destroyed with the more technical aspects, basically not able to do a single muscle-up. Problem was, before this year, if you were VERY GOOD at your specialty (boxing, football, soccer, etc.) why would you take time out of training to claim some title? However, now it's a title tied to a large amount of money on top of sponsorship. Even then, I still think it would take a few months of getting the general stuff down to be even close to competitive in the men's league.

 

As for your definition of fitness, the founder I think was trying to be a bit more scientific about it. In other words remove the subjectivity from it. One shouldn't just give examples like Mark Armstrong can do x sit-ups, y push-ups and run z miles in 24 hours THEREFORE he's the world's fittest man or Mike Tyson defeated his opponent in 90 seconds therefore he's the world's fittest man. Instead, use measurable results with many subjects doing many things. The guy or gal that can generate the most power on average in a variety of times and variety of activities is the most physically fit, period. Now, you don't need to be the most physically fit person to be a world class boxer, biker, soccer player. In fact, it can work against you at that elite level given your example (stronger people generally are heavier which hurts distance athletes.)

 

And of course, remember I'm trying to keep CrossFit (a workout concept) separate from the CrossFit Games (a competition to find the most physically fit). One does not have to do CrossFit to try out or even dominate the games. However, previous results seem to indicate that if you don't incorporate general physical preparedness training a few months ahead of time, you're not getting to the games regardless of your fitness level in a specific sport. That's not opinion, that's fact based on evidence. You're talking about a competition that can include running 7 miles through the hills, wall climbing, hammering a 4 foot stake into the ground, swimming, olympic lifting, carrying 600 pounds of sandbags across a stadium, etc. Basically, you have to be able to perform tasks you may never have trained for and do all of them better on average than other guys that may or may not have trained for those tasks.

 

Personally, I like it. It's like when ultimate fighting first came out and all these Martial Arts disciplines really went against each other. It was no longer XX discipline is better than YY variant of jujitsu. It came about, through competitions of the best, what discipline on average did best in that format. With CFG, you have a format where you can put your money where your mouth is. To a results based guy like myself, that sounds pretty cool.

[assassin_696]

Well then we disagree. Don't get me wrong, I do love CrossFit, the philosophy, structure and training and have recommended it to a lot of people and done a lot of the workouts myself. I just don't think this method is any more scientific. It probably does produce the most generally fit person, but not the most specifically fit. I don't see why general fitness is any more ultimate than specific, I agree it's probably more useful and interesting on a day to day basis but winning the Tour de France is still winning the Tour de France and in that specialisation the winner is the ultimate marker for fitness. But that's only one way of measuring it.

[NukeMarine]

Well then we disagree. Don't get me wrong, I do love CrossFit, the philosophy, structure and training and have recommended it to a lot of people and done a lot of the workouts myself. I just don't think this method is any more scientific. It probably does produce the most generally fit person, but not the most specifically fit. I don't see why general fitness is any more ultimate than specific, I agree it's probably more useful and interesting on a day to day basis but winning the Tour de France is still winning the Tour de France and in that specialisation the winner is the ultimate marker for fitness. But that's only one way of measuring it.

Oh, I'm not saying Crossfit MAKES or PRODUCES the most physically fit man or woman. I'm saying that the CrossFit Games can FIND the most physically fit men and women scientifically. By scientifically, you work on the theory that

 

-- Given a large pool of participants (10,000+ people)

-- Given a large variety of exercises that span large time (may be 5 seconds, 1 minute, 10 minutes or 20 minutes) and formats (could be bodyweight, skiing, climbing, swimming, weight lifting, wall climbing, sand bag moving, etc.)

-- Given a way to weigh performance in individual exercises and all exercises to determine placement

 

Then the most physically fit person will be the one that consistently scores better on average. You further back up the theory by changing the exercises to remove any specific benefit specialization gives you. Now, if year by year the people scoring at the top shift, then I'd agree there's a problem with this theory. But so far it's held in its limited capacity, but now it's going world wide literally to get pool of participants.

 

Now, CrossFit, Navy SEALS, P90X and others may CLAIM to make the most physically fit people on the planet, but at least CrossFit is offering a method to PROVE it. If the people in the top 10 of the CrossFit games are Navy SEALS then it's reasonable to claim that Navy SEALS program produces the most physically fit people on Earth.

 

Anyway, that's why it's scientific because it's testable and reproducible. To put it in Runescape terms, it's the difference between those that claim to have the perfect build for a duel character, and those that claim it then go to the duel arena and prove it.

[assassin_696]

Ah yeah I think that's a pretty valid point actually, sorry for the misunderstanding.