What I Really Think About CrossFit, Does The Narrative Fit?
Revisiting Comments
I appreciate the engagement I received on my last post ‘CrossFit Needs to Get a Grip: Why Coaches Don’t Care and How We Fix It’ and I can see why it was misinterpreted. It was not my intention to paint CrossFit or indeed coaches associated with it in a negative light. Instead, it was intended as an abstract exploration of CrossFit from one conceptualisation of care.
My intention here is to address some bias, evident in research, which was intended to encourage conversation. Highlighting that although Noddings (1984) conceptualisation of care suggests an absence of care in coaches, it is not extensive and by no means representative of CrossFit.
To do this I will revisit Noddings, specifically how wider influences could lead to a vilification of masculine discourse. Secondly, I will reconsider the injury research, and how it may introduce bias, subsequently establishing the difficulty with generalising to such an individualistic audience. Before finally presenting its inclusion and associated limitations within my previous post.
I am still learning and hope that the CrossFit coaching community will continue to help in my journey toward a stronger understanding.
Why Noddings’ Concept May Not Work
To truly understand Noddings’ concept of care, and its application to CrossFit, we must fully understand her theoretical position. Noddings’ concept emerged at a time where second wave feminism was in full swing, actively fighting against male supremacy. As such researchers in philosophy, resembling Noddings, looked to supersede the assumption that men are the only measure of humanity (Gilligan, 1977).
To do this Noddings sort to establish an alternative concept of morality and care, which did away with traditional hierarchy and situated relationships at its heart (Wood 1984). However, although Noddings (1984) does accept that masculine approaches are valid alternatives, she continues to advocate that feminine approaches situated in relatedness are preferential. Something that was later questioned, discerning wider audiences and reinforcing stereotypical gender roles (Graham 2007; Hoagland 1990; Houston 1990).
Regardless, Noddings (1986) argued, that care is not objective but interpretive and selfless, manifested in complex human relationships. Which, as previously stated, is a direct contrast to the assumption, that care can be objectively measured. Therefore, demonstrating that Noddings, at some level, attempts vilify masculine discourse, through the deliberate divergence from traditionally masculine constructs that measure care.
Armed with this understanding, CrossFit’s predisposition to lean on masculine traits such as individual ownership, competition, and strength therefore signifies to Noddings a lack of ability to care (Carreker, and Grosicki, 2020; Bellar et. al. 2015). Although there are certainly feminine traits of emotional investment, compassion, and modesty, within the wider community, they are not commonly the defining qualities of success in CrossFit (Glassman, 2007). Therefore, given Noddings wider framing, CrossFit’s predisposition, at the organisational level, restricts the need, at the individual level for care to occur.
It is not that there is anything abhorrently wrong with predominantly masculine traits or that CrossFit is a sport overpopulated by men. What Noddings’ theoretical perspective of care tells us is that due to the supposedly individualistic nature that commonly accompanies masculine traits, engaging in ‘motivational displacement’ becomes very difficult; thus, restricting the ability of the carer to care for.
Although, Noddings application leans toward the assumption that coaches do not care, it does not appropriately reflect the coach at the individual level. In addition, coaching pedagogy is complex and multifaceted implying that care may not be a definitive metric of coaching practice (Stone et. al. 2020; Lyle, J., and Cushion, C. 2017; Vinson et. al. 2016).
Consequently, such abstract claims were made in isolation and not intended as a generalisation of coaches in CrossFit but a consideration of how the brand of CrossFit may operate through the eyes of Noddings.
Negative Bias and Injury
This isolated view is not limited to solely this application of care but to wider considerations of injury, injury prevention and rhabdomyolysis (Barranco-Ruiz et. al. 2020; Klimek, 2018; Claudino et. al. 2017).
Research surrounding injury in CrossFit, albeit generally, does little to consider the independent control of owners and coaches; a result of decentralisation (James and Gill 2018; Heywood 2016; Koslap 2015; Herz 2014). As such results may not be representative outside of the population tested. Suggesting that although the severity of injuries can be alarming the likelihood could be comparatively low (Dominski et. al. 2019).
However, although attempts have been made to evidence this through outwardly comparing injury rates of CrossFit to the injury rates of other sports, CrossFit continues to be perceived as dangerous in literature. This perhaps may be a direct result of the method in which this research is conducted.
Specifically, Hak, Hodzovic and Hickey (2013) argued that CrossFit is no more dangerous than Rugby (Union and League) (Kerr et.al. 2008; Hoskins et.al. 2006). Nevertheless, the two are so contextually different that drawing such correlations are difficult to prove (Berger 2014). Instead, what this research does is further magnify discrepancies, rather than acknowledging similarities. In that both entail associated risks, but by no means are the definitive measure of these respective sports.
In addition, some contemporary articles, those of which feature comparatively higher injury rates, imply that coaches can be negligent, evidencing a reduction in rate of injury when coaches do intervene (Alekseyev 2020; Larsen et.al. 2020; Weisenthal et.al. 2014). It certainly might be in these specific instances, however, due to the lack of a traditional national governing body, and subsequent standardisation, it is difficult to generalise out to all coaches (Klimek et.al., 2018). Suggesting that although theoretically possible it may not be applicably representative.
This is not something that I was attempting to do through my previous post, although understand that the term ‘coaches’ was not explicitly established as entirely abstract concept.
So, What Are the Limits?
Revisiting this abstract nature of such an argument, I am not a CrossFit coach. Therefore, cannot experience these theoretical concepts in action, first-hand. As such I must let the literature fill in the gaps. Similarly, I am unable to always include all the perspectives of all 453 public UK boxes (CrossFit 2021). As a result, I may sometimes miss the mark and fail to paint an accurately representative picture.
Consequently, it was not my intention to present a holistic understanding but instead present an idea that could be argued against. Which would allow me to gain a further insight to CrossFit and how coaches operate. However, I am now aware that I was not explicit in evidencing the abstract nature of such a position, presenting a perspective that was incorrectly interpreted as completely my own.
Additionally, there were concerns raised about the contextual relevance of these resources. This is unfortunately reflective of the subsequent lack of research outside of the US that does little to explicitly consider the coach. This further demonstrates the lack of understanding specifically around how coaches operate in their contextual setting. Ultimately highlighting a very large gap in understanding that is yet to be bridged.
Altogether, the previous post presents two very clear limitations. Firstly, due to the abstract nature of such a post, it is difficult generalise out to the wider community. Furthermore, through the reliance on literature, the post continues to perpetuate the negative perspective of CrossFit in research; that needs to be combated against. This evidences that although applying a theoretical perspective, such as Noddings, is possible, it may not fully address or accurately represent all aspects of CrossFit.
Conclusion
In conclusion, care is only one perspective and is not a definitive metric on which we can measure coaching practice (Stone et. al. 2020; Lyle, J., and Cushion, C. 2017; Vinson et. al. 2016). My argument, I hope you can see, was not that individual coaches do not care and are bad. Instead, it was a consideration of care in CrossFit at the organisational level from the perspective of Noddings.
As such Noddings (1986;1984) presents, due to her aversion to patriarchal rule, that coaches do not care. However as previously discussed, this paints CrossFit in a negative light and continues to uphold the negative assumption prevalent in research. Instead, the message I was unable to convey was to encourage coaches to maintain an attentive eye on wider influences, continuing to criticize knowledge in accordance with their inner moral voice.
To clarify, I hope this post has contributed toward evidencing my perspective and stance. In that CrossFit and its coaches are not bad or dangerous, that more needs to be done to both understand the coach and counteract the negative bias of CrossFit emerging in research. Something that I will work on; to be more transparent in future research projects and blogs.
In extension I would like to express my gratitude to those coaches that provided the feedback to allow me to further clarify my position and paint a better picture of CrossFit. As such I hope that the CrossFit coaching community continue to provide their contextual perspective so that I may better evaluate the applicability of such theoretical concepts in the environment. Continuing to ‘call me out’ when things don’t quite fit aiding in my journey of understanding.
As always, I am happy to and encourage discussion around the concepts introduced, beyond the limited nature of blog posts. Please comment or get in touch via twitter @Eliot_CGreen. Thank You!
What do you think: Does Noddings really address care in CrossFit or sport - What might be missing?
References
Alekseyev, K., John, A., Malek, A., Lakdawala, M., Verma, N., Southall, C., Nikolaidis, A., Akella, S., Erosa, S., Islam, R., Perez-Bravo, E. and Ross, M. (2020). Identifying the Most Common CrossFit Injuries in a Variety of Athletes. Rehabilitation Process and Outcome. 9. 117957271989706.
Barranco-Ruiz, Y., Villa-González, E., Martínez-Amat, A. and Da Silva-Grigoletto, M.E. (2020) Prevalence of Injuries in Exercise Programs Based on Crossfit®, Cross Training and High-Intensity Functional Training Methodologies: A Systematic Review. Journal of human kinetics. 73(1). 251–265.
Bellar, D., Hatchett, A., Judge, L.W., Breaux, M.E. and Marcus, L. (2015). The relationship of aerobic capacity, anaerobic peak power and experience to performance in CrossFit exercise. Biology of Sport. 32(4). 315–320.
Berger, R. (2014). “The Nature And Prevalence Of Injury During CrossFit Training,” Dr. Paul Hak, Part Two. (online) Available from: https://keepfitnesslegal.crossfit.com/2014/07/10/the-nature-and-prevalence-of-injury-during-crossfit-training-dr-paul-hak-part-two/ (Accessed: 15 January 2021).
Cabral, B.M.I., Edding, S.N., Portocarrero, J.P. and Lerma, E.V. (2020). Rhabdomyolysis. Disease-a-month. 66(8). 101015–101015.
Carreker, J.D. and Grosicki, G.J. (2020). Physiological Predictors of Performance on the CrossFit “Murph” Challenge. Sports (Basel) 8(7). 92.
Claudino, J.G., Gabbett, T.J., Bourgeois, F., Souza, H.d.S., Miranda, R.C., Mezêncio, B., Soncin, R., Cardoso Filho, C.A., Bottaro, M., Hernandez, A.J., Amadio, A.C. and Serrão, J.C. (2018). CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports medicine — open. 4(1). 1–14.
CrossFit (2021). Find a Box. (Online) Available from: https://map.crossfit.com/ (Accessed 20 January 2021)
Dominski, F.H., Siqueira, T.C., Serafim, T.T. and Andrade, A. (2019). Comment on: “CrossFit and rhabdomyolysis: A case series of 11 patients presenting at a single academic institution”. Journal of science and medicine in sport. 22(9). 974–975.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review. 47(4). 481–517.
Glassman, G. (2007) Understanding CrossFit. (Online). Available from http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_56-07_Understanding.pdf (Accessed 20 January 2021)
Graham, M. (2007). The Ethics of Care, Black Women and the Social Professions: Implications of a New Analysis. Ethics and social welfare. 1(2). 194–206.
Hak, P.T., Hodzovic, E. and Hickey, B. (2013). The nature and prevalence of injury during CrossFit training. Journal of strength and conditioning research. Published Ahead of Print.
Herz J.C. (2014) Learning to Breath Fire: The Rise of CrossFit and the Primal Future of Fitness. Penguin Random House, USA.
Heywood, L. (2016). ‘We’re In This Together:’ neoliberalism and the disruption of the coach/athlete hierarchy in CrossFit. Sports coaching review. 5(1). 116–129.
Hoagland, S. (1990). Some Concerns about Nel Noddings’ “Caring”. Hypatia. 5(1). 109–114.
Hoskins, W., Pollard, H., Hough, K. and Tully, C. (2006). Injury in rugby league. Journal of science and medicine in sport 9(1). 46–56.
Houston, B. (1990). Caring and Exploitation. Hypatia. 5(1). 115–119.
James, E.P. and Gill, R. (2018). Neoliberalism and the Communicative Labor of CrossFit. Communication and sport. 6(6). 703–727.
Kerr, H.A., Curtis, C., Micheli, L.J., Kocher, M.S., Zurakowski, D., Kemp, S.P.T. and Brooks, J.H.M. (2008). Collegiate rugby union injury patterns in New England: a prospective cohort study. British journal of sports medicine. 42(7). 595–603.
Klimek, C., Ashbeck, C., Brook, A.J. and Durall, C. (2018). Are Injuries More Common With CrossFit Training Than Other Forms of Exercise?. Journal of sport rehabilitation. 27(3). 295–299.
Koslap M (2015). Glassman on D.C. Licensure: “They Want to Control You”. (Online) Available from: http://journal.crossfit.com/2015/08/glassman-licensure-dc.tpl#comments (Accessed 18 January 2021)
Larsen, R.T., Hessner, A.L., Ishøi, L., Langberg, H. and Christensen, J. (2020). Injuries in Novice Participants during an Eight-Week Start up CrossFit Program — A Prospective Cohort Study. Sports (Basel). 8(2). 21.
Lyle, J., and Cushion, C. (2017), Sport coaching concepts: a framework for coaching practice, Second edn, Routledge, Abingdon.
Noddings N. (1986) Fidelity in Teaching, Teacher Education, and Research for Teaching. Harvard Educational Review. 56(4). 496–511.
Noddings, N (1984) Caring: a feminine approach to ethics and moral education, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Stone, J.A., Rothwell, M., Shuttleworth, R. and Davids, K. (2020). Exploring sports coaches’ experiences of using a contemporary pedagogical approach to coaching: an international perspective. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health. 1–19.
Vinson, D., Brady, A., Moreland, B. and Judge, N. (2016) Exploring coach behaviours, session contexts and key stakeholder perceptions of non-linear coaching approaches in youth sport. International journal of sports science and coaching. 11(1). 54–68.
Weisenthal, B.M., Beck, C.A., Maloney, M.D., DeHaven, K.E. and Giordano, B.D. (2014) Injury Rate and Patterns Among CrossFit Athletes. Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. 2(4). 2325967114531177–2325967114531177.
Wood J.T. (1984) Different Voices in Relationship Crises: an extension of Gilligan’s theory. American behavioural Scientist 29(3). 273.