The Battle Continues For Better or Worse: Crossfit Inc. vs The NSCA
If you are a professional in the fitness field then this is something that you know has been going on for quite sometime now. The short version of the story for lack of a better description is, they are not friends and probably never will be after all this. They are not friends so much, that this battle has entered the legal world in the form of a formal lawsuit this past year and continues to progress down that path.
Most of you reading will probably be for or against either organization so I ask you to take off those hats for a brief moment and just read with an open mind.
What to expect:
PART 1
Brief background information
Current arguments and positions on either side
Possible Agendas/biases of either side.
The effect on the industry as a whole and not just directly Crossfit and the NSCA.
Part 2:Opinions and Thoughts
My Opinions and Questions
My Closing Thoughts
As the author I feel it is important to state a simple background and information about myself to make sure this article is received with my potential bias out of the way.
Name: George Pagan III
B.S. in Movement Sciences from Westfield State University
Certified under the NSCA as a CSCS since 2010
Not Certified Under Crossfit Inc.
Not a current member, participant or affiliate of Crossfit
I chose to become certified and associated with the NSCA once I graduated from college because, their high level certification seemed to be the one to get that would give you the highest “ceiling” of job opportunity in the industry from general population personal training to professional strength and conditioning. It was also moderately affordable since I was a broke college graduate.
I currently prescribe my own training programs and periodization methods. I do not compete in Fitness of any kind simply because I do not want to. I have friends, current and former colleagues that participate, operate or own a Crossfit Facility and we seem to get along just fine.
I enjoy a good debate/argument as most people close to me know quite well.
I think for myself and draw my own conclusions based off various information I know and collect.
With that being said, I am not a 100% advocate of all that Crossfit is and has brought to the fitness industry. My original opinion in college would be considered opposed to Crossfit. However, this has evolved to a 50/50 split of I like and do not like or agree with it as an acceptable method/mode of Training for the majority of the general population. Simply because Crossfit itself and those coaches in the space have evolved from their original practices. As a Certified professional under the NSCA I have only had positive experiences with the organization and their variety of official services.
So there is it. Take from that what you will, and know that I am not a narrow-minded thinking professional.
The background Info…briefly
Official excerpt:
CrossFit is many things. Primarily, it’s a fitness regimen developed by Coach Greg Glassman over several decades…CrossFit, the company, provides accredited training seminars… And, we have created the Sport of Fitness, known as the CrossFit Games.
The Unofficial easy to understand explanation:
Crossfit is an international for profit company that has developed a brand philosophy of fitness training. This extends to independently owned and operated but affiliated gyms known as “boxes”(not structured like a franchise model), a Multi-level Personal/Strength Training certification, Continuing education in the form of seminars and a Competition system known as “The Crossfit Games”.
Official Excerpt:
The NSCA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit international education association with an active voice in the news for advancements in the field of strength and conditioning. …brings together a diverse group of professionals from the sport science, athletic, allied health, and fitness industries.
The Unofficial easy to understand explanation:
NSCA also known as the National Strength and Conditioning Association is an international non-profit company that has developed professional education resources for the fitness industry. This extends to Multi-level Personal/Strength Training certifications, Professional Memberships, Insurance, Continuing education in the forms of Publications/Seminars/Clinics/Conferences, Peer review research journals.
Why are we talking about these two companies?
This whole ordeal started (as to my exposure/understanding) with the publication and distribution of two professional papers; one being a piece of research submitted,approved and printed by the NSCA Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and the other more of a Consensus paper meant for those in charge of military personnel health and performance to analyze. The Consensus Paper grouped Crossfit in with other branded training philosophies as “Extreme Conditioning Programs” and concluded (and I am Paraphrasing here),that ECP’s are not conducive in maintaining and performing occupational or operational duties. The consensus paper was back in 2010 and the research piece was more recent in 2013.
The 2013 research study is the one that really set things off as there were statements made about a 16% overuse injury rate of the participants and its association to the type and style of training that took place. The study was dealing with a Crossfit affiliate facility and their programing over a 10 week period. The 2013 Study’s focus was to look at the effects of Crossfit style training on aerobic fitness and body composition. When the study received some pretty heavy press from people/articles claiming things like “See, I told you Crossfit was Dangerous” a Crossfit Inc representative chose to look into it a bit further. The results and verbiage used in the study were not received well by officials at Crossfit after initial investigations of claims, which has led us to our current situation.
Current Arguments/Positions
Both CrossFit and the NSCA have made attempts at addressing the issue as information has become available to the public. These statements and positions on the topics are going to be official releases from each company and not taken from other news or media sources.
CrossFit
As of March 25th 2015 Crossfit has been very vocal in their current disagreements and legal battle with the NSCA. They have made public rebuttals, released some transcribed conversations and even the 23 page legal document filed May of last year. The co-authored blog of Russ Greene and Russell Berger “The Russells” which is sub domain on Crossfit’s main domain Crossfit.com has also seen a heavy increase in content creation since the beginning of 2014 and adopted the slogan:
Defending the brand from junk science, yellow journalism, and invincible ignorance.
Crossfit states in their latest video(below) that they defended themselves in a particular way because they have the responsibility to protect their affiliates worldwide and for the betterment of the industry.
Arguments from Crossfit:
They Believe the research that was done is riddled with faults to the point that it should never have been printed the way is was.
They Believe the NSCA has an agenda to defame Crossfit and forced the researchers to include statements about the injury data in a way that would effectively do so.
Believes that certain data reported in the research was either not collected properly or completely fabricated and has confirmed this through sworn testimony of the participants in the study.
States the JSCR did not follow proper procedure when Crossfit notified them of the potential of fraudulent data and published without investigating claims.
And from a recent video submitted to Crossfit’s YouTube channel, there are a variety of agendas that the NSCA and other certifying organizations have, all connecting in a mission to defame Crossfit and ruin their ability to have a greater influence on the industry.
In closing Crossfit stands by their defense and 100% believes their lawsuit against the NSCA is with merit.
NSCA
As of March 25th 2015 the NSCA has maintained a pretty low media profile about the conflict with Crossfit and continues to stand behind its original statements regarding the disagreements with the study in question. In their newest press release they also state that they will vigorously defend itself throughout the process.
Positions of the NSCA:
Stands behind their decision to publish the study
Defends the peer review process that took place in order to have the study be considered for their journal.
Defends the quality their journal (The Journal of Strength and Conditioning research) stating they do not manipulate research
Believes the lawsuit brought against them is without merit altogether
Believes that they are being attacked by CrossFit and that all of their media content surrounding this topic is meant to defame and discredit the NSCA.
Does not see CrossFit as a competitor within the industry.
NSCA Update to CrossFit Inc Claims and Allegations
On May 12, 2014, CrossFit Inc filed a lawsuit against the NSCA claiming false advertising and unfair competition…www.nsca.com
In closing the NSCA is standing behind their statements and feel that Crossfit has chosen to produce public content to hurt the public perception of the NSCA and that even their own content contains inaccurate information, misquotes and false statements.
Possible Biases/Agendas of Their Arguments/Positions
Regardless of the type of companies involved there is always going to some sort of underlying agenda or bias. This doesn’t mean a company is good, bad, right or wrong based off their position but, in order to understand the situation with an open mind it is good to see both sides before choosing where you stand.
Crossfit
The easiest to point at is that CrossFit is a for profit company and it is usually safe to assume that unless otherwise expressed; they want to continue to be profiting. It might not be a Crossfit specific bias but, I think that anyone looking at the situation would say the same thing. It is normal for a business of any kind to defend itself when it feels like it is being misrepresented or on the receiving end of an injustice. A bad public perception of your business will affect your ability to sell your products and services.
Here are 3 main areas of CrossFits’ business that could be affected by the injury information reported and show why they chose to react the way they did.
The Affiliate Program/their Affiliates
CrossFit introduced a very unique system of spreading their brand by using an affiliation model instead of the franchise model which is still the overwhelming norm with other fitness facilities. The Affiliates are under the Crossfit brand Umbrella but at the same time are completely independent. In order to use Crossfit’s name and branding you have to apply and pay to be an affiliate. Outside of that, each individual affiliate is their own entity and do not follow the same type of guidelines a franchise/franchisee business relationship would follow (ie. Starbucks, Golds Gym). Some of the affiliates even have two names associated with their facility; the Crossfit name and then another gym name. The best example of the independence of the affiliates is shown when an affiliate of Crossfit can be sponsored by Nike when Crossfit has a direct working relationship with Reebok in apparel and The Crossfit Games; those types of relationships could not form in a traditional franchise model as all franchises operate under the same model. However,affiliates can run their business however they see fit with limited guidelines from Crossfit headquarters.
With this type of business relationship the individual affiliates can be affected for better or for worse by the public perception of Crossfit as a whole. For example:
If one of their however many thousand independent affiliates starts breaking legs and it gets on the news, then Crossfit Breaks Legs; new memberships,certifications and affiliate applications slow.
If an athlete trains at a Crossfit facility ‘X’, becomes an olympic champion and it gets in the news then Crossfit produces olympic champions; new memberships, certifications and affiliate applications rise.
So, Crossfit HQ (the main company)stepping in to defend itself would be considered normal practice when trying to protect a profit generating part of their business because affiliates have to pay certain dues/fees to keep using the Crossfit Branding.
The Misunderstood New kid in School
Since their rapid gain in popularity Crossfit has been fighting to defend its methods, practices and pretty much everything else about it. (Don’t believe me, give a quick YouTube search of “Crossfit Fails” and see for yourself) I say they are like the new kid in school because, there is usually some rumor spread around an immature middle school/high school group about the new kid, that can make it difficult to assimilate with the general population; especially when they are different at face value. Crossfit Is different and that can be scary.
Crossfit came on to the scene with a lot of unique concepts and from the get-go were written off by quite a few seasoned and respected professionals. While there are some very legitimate coaches and quality facilities, just like every industry there is always one or multiple bad apples that just make life difficult. This is one area where the affiliation system of gyms may have failed. It was difficult for people(professional and the public) on the outside looking in to distinguish what was Crossfit the company responsible for and what the “Gym Owner/coach” was responsible for because it was all labeled “Crossfit”.
To this day they are still trying to clear up the rumors and explain what they are for people who just don’t get it or were misinformed from the beginning.
CrossFit Certifications
It used to be just a single level seminar for their certification process. Crossfit did not always have the multi-level certification system with specialty certs that is being developed today. This is a new space for Crossfit to step into developing while the NSCA has been in it for quite a bit longer. Crossfit does say their certifications are one of the primary profit generators for them. With that being said, if a study shows Crossfit is hurting people then what do you think the perception of the quality of their certifications is going to be.
If their certifications are not considered top quality; are coaches that are Crossfit certified not top quality too?
In order to grow their multi-level certification process and even expand the educational resources in the future, Crossfit will need to make sure they are seen as a company with integrity and full of quality educational programs/opportunities.
NSCA
The NSCA is a non-profit and one of the few certifying bodies that are considered the “gold standard” of qualifications among professionals and intellectuals. Because of their “high regard” within the industry and the fact that they are a non-profit organization it can be very easy to consider them the innocent victim of a profit driven bully. However, blindly writing someone off because of their perception is not what makes someone right.
Defending BizNEZZ Ethics.
Since the beginning of this conflict the NSCA has remained fairly consistent stating they stand behind all of their established protocols and practices. The NSCA has their own research journal called the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research(JSCR). They release newly published research 12 months a year since 2010 and have issued up to 9 times a year from 1987–2009. They are not new to the research field in terms of both time and quantity so, the claims Crossfit is making to the NSCA is a serious shot towards their ethical practices in reviewing and publishing research. The credibility of the journal would be hurt if something or someone comes out saying that the NSCA knowingly does things against what they advertise. As an educational organization that publishes research they are supposed to remain unbiased regardless of the research results. If they are found to be doing what Crossfit claims, then there is a potential to see a big shift in how things are handled with the NSCA.
While every person on the planet has a positional bias on certain topics the peer review process is supposed to eliminate those issues as much as possible and keep the review process focused on the quality of the research and the process that produced the results. Unfortunately, just like in any industry there can be some bad apples that make life difficult.
NSCA Certifications,Membership benefits
While the NSCA is a non-profit they do more than just accept donations to their foundation which supports their members and projects. The NSCA does in fact sell memberships at 4 different levels from a student level($47/yr)- a professional membership that includes liability insurance($337/yr). Their membership boasts various types of educational resources, special interest groups,discounts,career services and development and access to their publications(including the research journal). You can become a member before making attempts at becoming certified through the NSCA. A large base of members gives the NSCA a significant influence on the industry and also gives anyone from the outside looking in the idea that they are a respected authority with a loyal following.
To further solidify their influence on the industry they are also one of the leading certifying bodies of fitness professionals across multiple disciplines. While their name states “Strength and Conditioning” they have certifications for Personal Trainers, Special Populations, Tactical facilitator and of course Strength and Conditioning Specialists.
If the NSCA is found to be unethically reviewing and publishing research then these departments have a big potential to take a hit. Believe it or not there are a variety of professionals that do not work directly in the fitness industry that hold membership and certification from the NSCA. chiropractor, Physical Therapists and Athletic Trainer are among a few that you may know of.
Corporate Sponsorship and Educational Affiliations
Remember when Tiger Woods was going through his big scandal,when Kobe Bryant was going through his and even Lance Armstrong; what do they all have in common(besides the obvious)? They all were dropped by either all or some of their sponsors and corporate supports. The NSCA does have corporate support and from some pretty large corporations like Gatorade, Bodybuilding.com, GNC, TRX and quite a few more you might not know unless you are immersed in the industry. Having corporate sponsorship doesn’t automatically make the NSCA bias to support their sponsors missions but one can certainly bring that point up as a possibility. However unlikely you want to admit it to be, it happens in almost every other industry.
The NSCA also participates with some very prestigious universities and academic institutions that apply for recognition saying their programs are up to the quality standards of the NSCA’s guidelines. There are other organizations like ACSM and NASM that offer similar types of affiliations and can potentially take those connections away from the NSCA. Who knows, this might be an area Crossfit is exploring in the future. Since they have developed a more robust certification system this could be a next step in their plan for growth.
The Fitness Industry…How It Will Be Affected
I do not see a scenario where this has little to no affect on the industry as a whole, including those who choose to be apart of it either as professionals or participants. Fitness professionals have always had their disagreements with one another on techniques, equipment and progression methods but that has always been a behinds the scenes type controversy. I mean there is still a feud to whether 1 set is better than multiple sets for strength and muscle building. You may not have known that but it has been an ongoing battle since the 1980’s and the research has not swayed each sides view.
This Crossfit vs. The NSCA is way more public and in the mainstream than any of that ever was. This also doesn’t just involve challenging a training technique of strength and bodybuilding athletes but, challenges both the NSCA’s attempts at improving the industry through knowledge and the community that has been evolving around Crossfit’s influence in the application of fitness concepts. The future of our industry will be better off if we can be friendly towards each other instead of even more divided. The more divided we are will only lead to less and less progress towards improvement.
We will start to look like the divided American political system of democrats vs. republicans or even worse the extreme right wing and extreme left wings. You know, those people that seem to never budge on their belief regardless of what is said or shown to them…It is like talking to a wall and expecting good conversation, it just doesn’t happen.
2 quality Professionals fighting against each other strictly because their separate but equal credentials does not provide a great environment for the general population looking to find an answer to their health and fitness problems. We do not need NCSA and Crossfit Professionals calling each other names and throwing insults around in the face of people(clients and the general public) that already have a hard time finding someone to trust.
Continuing Education Opportunities might be more scarce.
Outside of the the opinions of each side there can actually be some legitimate professional concerns(I have) depending how nasty this thing gets. Crossfit and their partners, the NSCA and their partners(current and future for both) might not recognize continuing education courses from each other if things go really south. Continuing education is already very closed off to very specific courses and topics only provided by very specific approved practitioners. There are a lot of courses, additional certifications, conferences that are approved by multiple organizations and that makes things a bit easier if you need to re-certify for multiple certs.If this fight gets personal that could stop.
Also, if you want to include an experience where you learned valuable information for your business that is not pre-approved you have to submit for it to be approved in order to get “credit”. If courses etc. are not approved by multiple organizations then you have to take more time out of your day and more money out of your budget just to maintain professional certification. If a course you submit for approval doesn’t get approved then you don’t get credits for it and now again you have to spend more money to participate in something that might not bring value other than credits to re-certify.
PART 2:My Opinions
Injury Data In the Research
It wasn’t an Injury Study so we shouldn’t expect detailed information about injury data collection
I have read the paper and I only found the word “injury” in the study 5 times.
Once intheSubjectsportion of the study.
This is where the researcher is supposed to display some demographic information about the participants as well as information that that could have an effect or interpretation on the results.
4 times inthediscussionportion.
The discussion section is supposed to act as a bridge point between the scientific results and real world application portion which is usually positioned after the discussion.
Specifically thediscussionsectionis meant to discuss and describe the following:
Results found in the study in a short but concise description.
What theories were shown to be valid or invalid and the possible reasons why.
Any shortcomings in the methodology the researchers used.
Propose future research to promote knowledge base.
This study was not intended to find or searching to find injury rates and they never state that in any section outside of the two listed. When you are doing a research study you are doing it to find specific information that either shows your hypothesis was valid or not. Regardless of the methods you use there is always going to be data collected or analyzed that does not have a place or relate to your hypothesis. You hold on to this data and include it into the discussion section as interesting things you found. I belive this section is meant to entice other researchers to expand upon what you have collected.
If the injury data they found is against what you believe to be true, you can develop your own hypothesis about the injury rate and test it with your own research study. When you do this you will also collect other data that does not relate to your hypothesis. There are going to be holes and information about the data that you cannot answer because it was not your focus. Research studies like the one in question are not meant to figure everything out all at once.
Simply upon first reading the study back in 2013 I did not come to the conclusion that it was a blatant attack on Crossfit like some of the representatives from Crossfit have said it to be. However, If the injury data was not collected properly or even true then I obviously have an issue with it being included in a research paper that had no intention of collecting it in the first place.
NSCA Collection Questions
While I will stand behind innocent until proven guilty; Crossfit Inc has brought up quite the compelling argument if you can read through the bias remarks and pay attention to the actual information they report. The researchers wavering back and forth on how the data was collected, sworn participant testimonies that no one was injured, the actual facility having their own lawsuit against the researchers and the claim of the NSCA not investigating when they apparently should have all make this a very interesting lawsuit to follow. I believe the lawsuit the Affiliate has in place is more important because it involves the individuals that actually performed and submitted the paper.
The Peer Review Process of the JSCR
One of the points Russell Berger brings up is when the original research in question was submitted for peer review it never contained any injury data, and only after being denied for revisions multiple times that the researchers put information in the paper about injury. I can not say I have seen and read the originally submitted document so, I do not know what was different besides the injury data being thrown in.
With that said it is not uncommon for research to go through the peer review process more than a once, especially if the researchers are not correcting or clearing up the issues presented by the reviewers. That is what the peer review process is supposed to be for; to review and be critical of how the research is displayed. It is formally defined as:
I do not think just because a study did not pass upon first submission and data was requested for the discussion portion of the paper means there was a forced manipulation by the JSCR/NSCA. It could be true it could not be true. I do feel the JSCR has a responsibility to make sure they are reviewing everything they can. If there is a question to the validity of a paper they should investigate it to the best of its ability prior to publishing. Once a study is published it is open for interpretation from anyone who reads it. If the facts are not the facts then people are going to unknowingly be misinformed.
Crossfit Please Tell me what you are!
They have evolved as a business since the early 2000’s but I still do not really know what they are. Mcdonalds….fast food restaurant franchise. Starbucks…Coffee shop franchise. Golds Gym…Fitness Facility franchise. Nike….Athletic footwear, apparel and equipment company. Hell, I even know HerbaLife is. What are you Crossfit?
Are you a Training Methodology?
If so, tell me what it is besides constant variance to concurrently develop all major components of fitness. Details.
Are you a Fitness Sport league/Organization like the MLB is with a huge farm system that consists of your affiliates as the development leagues/teams and your season starts with the structure open workouts and progresses to the Games?
Great! that’s new and something we can actually work with and develop a better understanding.
Are you a Small Business Fitness Development Company that allows coaches to use your “brand product” for community market awareness but don’t restrict the style of training they chose to deliver?
If so, consistently represent it first and foremost so that we know.
Are you a Fitness Education and certification Company that wants to improve fitness training quality through hands on training?
Show it! and not just in a text link in the sidebar of your main site that leads to a sub domain.
Are you a Branded Fitness Facility Company revolutionizing the old franchise model?
Even better! It gives the Fitness Industry professionals another area to which they can excel.
I think if you could clarify to myself and the uninformed public as to what you are, I think you will be better received by professionals already in the field and the public will understand how you operate.
There are a lot of people that do not understand you do not follow the franchise model because they see your name plastered everywhere in the same way they see a Starbucks on every street corner. So, like I stated above you could avoid hardship and confusion from the public if they actually knew what you were.
You might be all of what I asked above and thats great too! But show me. Because, if I was someone randomly visiting your website I would think Crossfit is just a Free Daily Workout Plan that sometimes holds events ; I would explain it to someone else the same way. We both know that is not all Crossfit is or offers but, that is what the website displays. On the other side of the coin I know what the NSCA is and, if someone were to stumble upon their website they would also know what they are within a few lines of reading.
I think it will do you some good to revamp or overhaul the main site to fit the current state of your business.
CrossFit is not bad but, does all the extra content help or hurt them in their defense?
Crossfit has done a ton of good for fitness in the general population from creating a positive community for exercise, empowering womens fitness and changing lives with fitness for all ages. Believe it or not they also have done a great job of building a brand that allows quality professionals to open, operate and coach without franchise restrictions or the struggle of building a loyal following first on their own. Their powerful brand does a lot of the marketing and advertising on its own that a lot of strength and fitness professionals are just not good at. It would be difficult to argue today that a new Crossfit affiliate gym would not attract more local attention than if that same gym opened without the Crossfit brand. That is a fact.
I can respect the passion for defending something they love and believe in. However, I feel the way they chose to defend Crossfit was too aggressive, accusatory and defensive. It doesn’t mean they were wrong for being offended and choosing to defend themselves, I would have rather seen them do it in a different manner is all. Crossfit’s co-authored Blog (a sub domain of crossfit.com) called “The Russells” is a good example of how they structured their defense to the public. The Russells seems like the kind of friends where you go out for a beer together and get into heated debates over things like White cheddar cheese vs Yellow Cheddar cheese in a sandwich. I wouldn’t mind that one bit in fact I enjoy a nice friendly debate for no reason at all; I just didn’t like that approach when it came to this situation. My personal preference is all.
I think if Crossfit would have went a different route at defending itself, more people would have a positive perception of the lawsuit outside the Crossfit community. Remember, how you say something is often just as important as the actual words.
Maybe:
Addressing and displaying the limitations of the study first and then making a part two that shows your thoughts why there were limitations and misrepresented information.
In the beginning when the study came out they could have Identified to the media that the injury data was not the focus of the study and that it was only submitted to spark additional research which Crossfit will further encourage to prove or disprove that data.
Allow someone else or on their own Collect/compile its possible injury data from the open workouts,regionals and Crossfit Games from 2013 and 2014. And present them to the public as a way of forming a defense that Crossfit even as a sport is not what the study claims.
Promote the good findings of the studies and champion what actual good data was found.
Explaining the Licensure of Personal Training first before addressing your concerns with the NSCA and ACSM involvement. As a professional that type of information would be very valuable for me if shown without bias first. I want to know about the ins and outs of that topic but I dont want to hear conspiracy theories first, let me form my own opinion on the matter once I know the facts /information.
The NSCA …WHY SO SILENT?
I think the NSCA could have been a bit more vocal in their defense as well because sometimes saying nothing also leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths. I think the NSCA would have benefitted from being a bit more vocal. Their content didnt even have to be specific about the Crossfit issues. They could have at least:
Describe how the NSCA collects research for its journal
The relationships with the researchers.
The basics about the structure required for a study to be considered for the journal.
Create content showing and describing the procedures of the typical peer review process.
Remember this is a public issue and not just an internal industry issue. There are Crossfit Coaches and affiliate owners that are members and certified under your organization. It might be good to think of their dual interests.
In closing
The Study has done more than produce a few lawsuits and upset a couple of people. Depending on how things move forward it can create a great divide within an industry where the majority of professionals are fighting to be taken as serious as other health and medical professionals instead of being considered snake oil salesmen, jock idiots, Bro-science gurus and product pushing sleazy sales reps. There is no clear answer to fixing this particular issue but I know for a fact that being divided solves nothing.
Originally published at fitletes.com

Thanks For taking the time out of your day to read.
If you enjoyed it then I hope you follow, It would really mean the world to me.