It's comical, really. In this snippet alone, the first in what I imagine will be a series of pseudo-intellectual pats on the back, they bizarrely plot affiliate growth against their "battles", implying their domestic skirmishes are somehow translating to (almost exclusively international) expansion? Isn't this exactly the type of BS correlation used in the health sciences that CrossFit so loudly bemoans? Also, your growth is no longer "exponential", it's plateauing... and will quickly enter the trough stage if the offensive tone of this unpolished new website is any indication. 

Please provide some examples for your critique; random insults are not going to stand, but reasoned discussion with solid content will.  Thanks!

I'll tell you what no one finds your interesting...your comment.  Your critique is worthless unless you provide specific examples.  

Well, my comment was deleted so I'll chime in here with a specific example - literally days after criticizing Ancel Keys for cherry-picking data origins to confirm biases, the "Battles" team is implying that there is a relationship between CrossFit's domestic skirmishes and affiliate growth. By the numbers, growth is almost exclusively international at this point and as far as I know, CrossFit isn't working to uncover health sciences corruption within those growth markets. This timeline seems specifically designed to create a data relationship where none exists... not a great look given the scrutiny applied elsewhere throughout the CrossFit's website. 

I’m not sure where you’re seeing a claim of a causal relationship between the two elements in this graphic, Ansel. 

Actually, it would be impossible to imply in any scientific sense that the varied data points on the Battles timeline directly caused affiliate growth, because they represent a series of uncontrolled, dynamic events on the part of multiple actors. There’s no testable proposition. This isn’t a scientific claim like the one that Keys made, for example.

There’s no claim made of business success as a direct result of the Battles (though you could argue that CrossFit’s willingness to tell the truth and resist attempts to infringe upon affiliates’ ability to make their clients healthy is good for the brand, not only in immediately quantifiable ways but in terms of qualitative benefits like reputation, integrity, etc. - that’s just not what the timeline claims). 

As noted in the introduction, the affiliate growth seems to be provided for historical context, which would make sense when used in a linear depiction of time. There are plenty of questions we could ask while considering the timeline, like: did CrossFit’s successful disruption of the fitness space (even looking at the growth rate in the five year period from 2008 - 2013) threaten its competitors to the point that they tried to restrict its growth via licensure and regulation? Did CrossFit’s willingness to speak out against toxic food and beverages draw fire from those industries? But those aren’t questions of science.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Olivia. Infographics are by nature intended to be standalone data narratives, which is why the graphic itself is IMO problematic. By plotting growth against battles a relationship is implied, regardless of whether the supporting text caveats otherwise. Further complicating matters, it does seem that CFHQ is OK with cherry-picking information to support their views - on CrossFitHealth.com there is a section literally titled "Research that Confirms Our Bias". Credibility is hard earned in the sciences, and a willingness to "confirm bias" to push beliefs undermines otherwise noble aims.  

Anyway, I am personally grateful for the work you all are doing here in the States! Let's not fall into the same traps as our adversaries, though.

The easiest example is a critique of scientific methods of others and their data analysis. The easiest example is during the open when they compare workouts from year to year and if the average score improves they conclude that it means everyone is getting more fit. Obviously this is data but without statistical analysis and normalization for variables (learned response, etc.) this cannot be stated. My other point was demonstrated easily by Joshua Webster. Thank you to Lynne Pitts for being civilized. I greatly enjoy CrossFit programming and training and believe it does provide value and benefit. However, to not acknowledge the data shortcomings in CrossFit is antagonistic to the whole idea of attacking your own weaknesses. 

You’re exactly right by plotting both affiliate growth and key moments in our battle we are not only implying a relationship but demonstrating it. You’d have to show that the events didn’t happen on those dates or that our count on affiliates was wrong. The relationship is a temporal one. Sorry, but it’s true. So you’re wrong in saying there is no relationship. 

As to whether the battles create growth or the growth create the battles - that would be to examine a causal relationship between the two phenomena. I will never be found anywhere ever claiming that correlation proves causation. You don’t need to stay awake waiting for me to do that and you don’t have to pretend like we did when we didn’t. So you’re wrong on this point too! 

And yet, I am claiming a causal relationship. If I tell you that the more affiliates we have the more revenue we have to defend affiliates, the brand, and the affiliates work can you begin to sense a causal relationship? With the coffers full we can redress tortious grievances where we couldn’t otherwise. You’d have to be really stupid to doubt the likelihood of that. 

Ansel, respectfully, you’re in way over your head. You’ve confused selecting data to overstate a correlation and then using that overstated correlation as evidence of causation with someone putting a few dates on a timeline. That you’d have to go to such tortured logic  in an attempt to disparage our efforts makes you, in my mind, a troll. 

And, I have traveled the world speaking on chronic disease, the failures of postmodern science, the corruption of health by soda, and the exportation of deadly science and nutrition guidelines. China, Brazil, and South Africa late last year alone. Our friends include Fettke, Noakes, Dahquist, Gí¸etszche, Kendrick, Fung, Harcombe, and Ravnskov! I was invited and spoke at the Beijing Sports University last year on Chronic Disease and Scientific Corruption. 

As for growth we are still growing in the US, but the market is maturing and slower for sure. Exactly as you’d expect. Each emerging market has grown in similar patterns and we are still the fast growing large chain on earth. We got to 15,000 business units in half the time that any other company has. (Source: Harvard Business School in my annual visit.) 

Brant, 

You can repeat the claim that CF has a methodological problem with data, but so far have alluded to one instance in our timeline, and then shifted to another I know nothing about. I do remember several people offering up Games data analysis but our science staff never weighed in publicly. 

Our data analysis capability is world class. Our chief scientist has taught stochastics, probability theory, and mathematical modeling of complex physical phenomena at several universities and was chief scientist for Hughes Aircraft Company for decades. We know science and math as well or better than anyone else in the fitness and health space. Dr. Glassman has contributed to the mathematical analysis of work of several of our allied scientists. His analysis of heat injury data at our EAHE Conference presented original work demonstrating conclusively that heat isn't the cause of heat injury in athletes  - a wonderful contribution. 

It’s silly but all I can do is say you’re wrong and offer some credentials and background, but that’s it until you make a substantive claim. Understand that what you're doing is trolling. 

We produced the first definition of fitness amenable to accurate and precise estimation, making ours the worlds first scientific definition of fitness. This made the scientific measurement of fitness possible. These are all prerequisites to developing a technology of advancing human performance. This was needed to collect meaningful data. 

Finally, I'm sorry about the dizziness. I fully believe you. 

Brant, I'll admit I was being overly curt.  I was in the middle of a workout and between sets.  Apologies.  Tone aside, I think you are falling into the cognitive bias trap yourself.  This tends to be a circular trap with each side claiming the other is unaware of their bias, but you must be aware of yours by now, you stated it so clearly.  It is not ridiculously easy to see why Crossfit looks like a cult, unless you are prepared to be biased against Crossfit, or towards cults.  Either way, lets just drop the hyperbole and limit examples to better areas.  Your example is a little weak, but perhaps you know a better way in which Crossfit HQ supports cherry-picking or data skewing? I say it's weak because learned response can be a function of fitness.  And if that supposition is true, then isn't everyone getting "fitter" if they are experiencing positive learned response? I'm not being absurd to say that this type of response is part of the benefits-package that we have signed up for by participating in Crossfit.  If I am being absurd (and I'm sure Greg will tell me if I am...) then I apologize.  I can tell you're in the community, so am I, no need for me to engage in friendly-fire.  Cheers.

Ansel, 

RE: “Further complicating matters, it does seem that CFHQ is OK with cherry-picking information to support their views - on CrossFitHealth.com there is a section literally titled ‘Research that Confirms Our Bias’." 

The battles you see on this timeline came as a response to Coca Cola’s intrusion into the health sciences and their direct support of organizations who have attacked the CrossFit brand, threatening our affiliates and our community.

In this forum most of us agree on the wave tops (carbs bad and sedentarism is bad, for example). Sadly, however, what we know as fact runs counter to popular opinion with both the general population and in many cases, the medical community. Greg has created a forum in which we can combat the rise of global chronic disease rates through education of where and how we went wrong. The following is directly from the CrossFit Health site charter: 

“The inexorable rise of chronic disease, which is taking 70 percent of lives needlessly and prematurely, has two root causes: excess carbohydrate consumption and sedentarism. From the onset of this epidemic, official response from our universities, government institutes of health, and our very own doctors was to promote a high-carb, low-fat, margarine-greased descent into ever-worsening disease and death. Little has changed in decades beyond worsening global health and CrossFit’s ascendancy.” 

The curriculum is focused on what constitutes good science (see yesterday’s article by Jeff Glassman) how research can be misleading (You mentioned Ancel Keys in your comment) and the nefarious role that corporations often play in misleading the public (yesterday’s article from People). Being counter cultural doesn’t in and of itself absolve us of confirmation bias, but the presentation of material in my opinion, has proved that we are dedicated to scientific truth. 

RE: Credibility is hard earned in the sciences, and a willingness to "confirm bias" to push beliefs undermines otherwise noble aims

I think that few people know how difficult credibility comes about as well as Greg Glassman. 

Consider that 30 years that are not shown on this timeline. Greg created a definition of fitness that was held up by measurable, observable and repeatable data. His approach was unique specifically for it’s potential for scientific evaluation (distance, time, load, velocity, work and power related to movements, skills and drills aka performance data). 

It was unpopular to say the least and Greg was kicked out of countless gyms in his attempts to bring real fitness to light. It was hard to market (“hey try this workout… it’s really hard and it’ll make you throw up”) and it ran against the grain. What set it apart was the foundations based in science and the results it provided. 

Re: “Let’s not fall into the same traps as our adversaries, though.”

I respect your sentiment. However, if history is any indication of the future I see no danger of that. Greg has a history of doing the right things, for the right people, for the right reasons all the while avoiding the temptations of the bright, shiny objects that were placed in front of him. CrossFit has remained a family business and stayed true to it’s charter and fought battles that exposed widespread corruption.

Wow, didn't expect this to spurn so much discussion and bring in the big guns. Thoroughly enjoy that it did though. 

First off to Joshua Webster, thank you for the apology, as you said we are both part of the community and can remain civil. I will say that most formal definitions of cult have negative connotation, so being bias to it is natural I think. Similar to being biased against the Nazis. I also said refer to as a "cult", with the obligatory quotations. Basically I was stating why people can get the proverbial bad taste in their mouth. On your second point about learning response, I listed that as one factor to include in the analysis, there are numerous others. In regards to do I think it is part of fitness that is an interesting question and would have to do more research on it. However, what I will state is that in most formalized testing scenarios this is something that is accounted for. More importantly the proper analysis has not been done or at least not made public for the claims that are being made. Which as I stated is the crux of my argument. 

In response to Greg Glassman, thank you for commenting, I was surprised and it was interesting to read your response. Trolling means I had to have intent to illicit an upset or angry response, and that was never my intent. I fail to see how  listing a CV helps this discussion. I could list mine as well but don't think it would further anything. I also never questioned ability to do the analysis. It would only take time and money, and in my opinion should be done. I stated that people directly affiliated with CrossFit (i.e. - open and games announcers) have made numerous claims without providing data to support it. This is not an isolated incident so my statement is not singular as everyone implied. 

As I have stated several times, I frequently follow CrossFit programming along with my own. I have met and continue to meet great people in it. However, to not hold ourselves to the same bar we expect everyone else to (and lash out aggressively when they do not) seems counterproductive. Thank you everyone for commenting, I have learned a great deal. Overall, I would say it solidified my thesis but has definitely made my think deeper on it and I will continue to research.