backhander profile

Why would anyone would buy a specialised when there are bikes like this out there?

Sheesh. I tick so many of those boxes it's embarrassing. I'd wear plaid to work if the director would let me.
I think it's missed facial hair though.

Originally Posted by craw View Post
1. Doesn't like being told what to ride
2. Tells us what he thinks we should ride

So true.

Except it's not is it smart guy?
I didn't say either of those things. We are going too be told what to ride, wether we like it or not. I'm just glad it's not going to be by spesh. I also didn't tell anyone what to ride. Not really a smart comment mate (edit, I'm not your mate. I think you're a cunt)

LOL spesh. They were determined to make us all ride 29ers, but the rest of the industry gave them the bird so they're now eating the shit sandwich. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch. Hopefully 29ers will now be XC only.

Wow. She's an ugly bitch eh?

Feds say it's OK. Tesla says, make sure you get one with the "just in case" improvements
http://www.wired.com/2014/03/tesla-feds-armor/

Personally I'd be avoiding speed bumps.

I don't think it's in your remit to decide who has a position from which to debate and who hasn't. Otherwise, we may as well shut the forum and all just email you directly.
It all comes down to what we consider the definition of "fitness", and until someone can show me a better method of measuring it than VO2 max, that's what I shall be sticking with. Otherwise it's completely unquantifiable.
I do consider athletes like Mo Farah "fit", even though their deadlifts and curls are probably a bit shit. I'd say that a boxer like Riddick Bowe was fit, even though his body composition was less than optimal and I doubt he was the most flexible athlete in the world. I considered Lance Armstrong fit, even though he had sub optimal health due to cancer (another of your fitness prerequisites). If you disagree then that's OK with me, and probably everyone else too!

to say that crossfit is more like bodybuilding shows you have a complete lack of understanding about what fitness really is and a high bias against resistance training.

Incorrect. I have no bias against any type of training. I'll thank you not to tell me what I think. I'll also thank you not to selectively quote me; you know full well that I was referring to XF in a sports context (ie, it isn't one)
In fact my own training has a resistance bias, at 6ft 210lbs w/12% body fat, I'm certainly no endurance athlete.

until you resolve to accept what the real definition of fintess is you will not be able to understand what a truly fit athlete is. you should in fact acknowledge that the top crossfit athletes may actually be some of the fittest athletes on the planet.

Riiiiiiight. Until I accept that XF participants are the bestest, I can't understand fit. Yeah. Well done.
I do love the way that "fitness" has been muddies into something completely unmeasurable and incomparable between sports. Somewhat conveniently for XF. I note with interest that Froning etc don't even train XFas we would understand it, or do XF WODs as their training regime.

If someone enjoys crossfit, (I can see the appeal) what's the harm?

I don't the that there's a reasonable argument against this, but it sticks in the throat when the followers of this craze tell us that XF people are the bestest, fittest people on the planet and that all other methods are inferior. Somehow these guys are fitter than all of the olympic athletes, pro and elite sportspersons. I don't buy it. Not even for a second.

If someone says to me "I'm quite fit at the minute", I don't take that to mean that they are massively flexible, or have put 20lbs on their squat or have been dieting effectively (FFS). Maybe my understanding comes from being ex military or even a brit.
I think there's a little bit of being deliberately obtuse, but an awful lot of people justifying their exercise regime choices and perhaps have drank a little too much kool aid.
I will not accept that XF makes the fittest athletes (because it doesn't by any single measure) and this is besides the fact that we can't compare a XF participant with a sportsman as XF is just a training method, not a sport. It's much more like bodybuilding than a race of any kind in that respect.
Fashionble or not, XF has some pretty substantial flaws in the opinions of much more knowledgable people than any on here, and is hardly groundbreaking. It's just a branding and marketing exercise.

i'll give you a definite "sorry this is wrong" on this one. the reason being is that you're measuring physiological fitness by only one factor - cardiovascular fitness. so while i do agree with you that CV fitness is important, it is not the only measureable component. the sceintifically accepted definition of what fitness is includes 5 health and 6 skill realted components.

the other issue here is that you're saying physiological fitness which i assume to mean the health related components. however in the sense you're using it it is a bit of a misnomer as physiological can include the skill related definitions as well. if we look at a definition of physiology it is the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and their parts, including all physical and chemical processes. what you're specifically referring to is actually biological fitness - ie VO2 max

the 5 accepted health related components of fitness are:

1.muscular strength
2.muscular endurance
3.cardiovascular endurance
4.body composition
5.flexibility

so in that context, extreme endurance athletes are not the fittest individuals.

That's not really correct though is it? And who are they accepted by?
strength? composition? (this one especially is complete crap) flexibility?. How could you correctly weight a score for all of those to find out who is the fittest? How do you measure flexibility? You couldn't. It's impossible. There is no way someone could be fitter than an ultra athlete because they have a better bench. It's a total nonsense.
And, I'm not even a dog in this race. I'm far from an endurance athlete; I'm a rugby player.

The only way you are measuring fitness is running a long way

No I'm not. I have stated clearly that I am not referring to sports specific fitness. Please read again and then comment.
I shall say again PHYSIOLOGICAL fitness; and yes, I equate true fitness to cardiovascular fitness.

Cardiovascular fitness is the ability of the heart and lungs to supply oxygen-rich blood to the working muscle tissues and the ability of the muscles to use oxygen to produce energy for movement.

Cardiovascular fitness is generally measured in VO2 max.
Pro road cyclists have VO2 max around 90ml/kg/min, Seb Coe's was 82ml/kg/min XC skiers are 85-90ml/kg/min. A quick google suggests Fronings' is 46ml/kg/min
That's exactly what I mean.
I'm not saying any of these athlete types are better than another, and indeed Froning will be the most verstaile by a long way. But he's not the fittest (in the truest sense of the word).

You misunderstand me. I was not referring to sport specific fitness. I was referring to physiological fitness. Of course a runner is going to be better at running and a crossfitter better at….erm….crossfit. Fitness is still measured the same way.
I'm still standing by my comment that an ultra athlete will be fitter in the medical/physiological sense than mr Xfit.