FP article

13 messages
Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>
To: jim_gourley

Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Hi Jim,
First I'd like to thank you for your FP article on CrossFit and the military. You clearly put a lot
of research into it.
One line states, "The Army has perhaps given high intensity workouts the coolest reception,
calling them 'extreme conditioning programs' (ECPs) in a 2011 paper ..."
It would be more accurate to state that "The Consortium for Health and Military
Performance" or the "Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences" have given
high intensity workouts the coolest reception.
The 2011 paper you are referring to was written by the Consortium for Health and Military
Performance (along with the ACSM), which is part of the Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences.
While the Uniform Services University is certainly part of the federal government and related
to the military, it doesn't represent the Army at large, nor claim to.
Personally, I would argue that CrossFit advocate Lt. Gen. Abrams represents the Army
more than CHAMP/USUHS do, since he is the Senior Military Advisor to the SecDef and
has found success implementing his views on CrossFit in the Army far more than CHAMP
has.
Thank you for your consideration. Please let me know if you have any more questions.
P.S. My colleague Russell Berger and I write a blog on CrossFit research that you may be
interested in, if you haven't seen it yet: www.TheRussells.Crossfit.com.
-Russ Greene
CrossFit HQ

Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:51

AM

To: jim_gourley
Whups, wrong link at the end there. Here's the right one: http://therussells.crossfit.com/
And here's a link to the 2011 Champ study for your
convenience: http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_111200_Bergeron_Champ.pdf
[Quoted text hidden]

Jim Gourley
To: Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Russ,

Thanks for the info. While I did see that other army leaders are extremely pro-CrossFit, I
got the sense that they're individuals acting within a larger institution that's skeptical of
the program and risk-averse to the injury hype. Based on the research and interviews I
conducted, I got the impression that the Marines were out looking for a program that
would substantially improve fitness, while the army sought one that would not lead to
injuries. That philosophical disparity from the beginning is what led to the Marines
developing the HITT program, while the army revamped its existing policies. It's my
personal suspicion that the Marines will meet with greater success, both due to the
CrossFit regimen and their cultural approach to fitness in the first place. Time will tell, but I
intend to continue following up on the story as time goes on.

I'll also mention that this piece is tangentially related to a book project I'm working on
about the history of physical fitness of soldiers in armies dating from the ancient Greeks to
modern times. If it's okay with you, I'd like to keep your contact info for future reference
and potential interviews down the road.

Thanks,
Jim

From: Russ Greene [mailto:russ.greene@crossfit.com]

Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:51 PM
To: jim_gourley
Subject: Re: FP article
[Quoted text hidden]

Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

To: Jim Gourley
Bcc: Russell Berger <russell@crossfit.com>

Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Jim,
You can definitely contact me in the future regarding that book. I look forward to it. And if I
can't answer your questions, I will direct you to someone in CrossFit who can.
If you'd like to say that the Army in general may be skeptical about CrossFit, based on your

experience, I have no objection to that.

It is not correct, however, to state that "The Army has perhaps given high intensity workouts
the coolest reception, calling them 'extreme conditioning programs' (ECPs) in a 2011 paper
..."
I must ask you to correct this line, as it gives the false impression that the Army produced
the 2011 CHAMP/ACSM article. The Army did not produce that article.
Second, I must ask you what you meant by this, "CrossFit itself cited the Marines
development of HITT as a vindication of its brand."
Where has CrossFit cited the HITT program as vindication? It's possible that it has, but I
don't recall it.
Thank you.

[Quoted text hidden]

Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

To: Derek Fields <derek@crossfit.com>

Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:09 PM

fyi
[Quoted text hidden]

Jim Gourley
To: Russ Greene <russ.greene@crossfit.com>

Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Russ,

The Marine reference was in An Answer, CrossFit's official response to the CHAMP report,
authored by Dr. J.A. Glassman. The most specific reference was on page 47 of that report.

I stand by the assessment of the army's reaction to CrossFit. Again, that's an impression
developed by my reading of current army physical training doctrine. Individuals like
General Abrams certainly have influence, but at an organizational level the "big" army has
certainly not been as receptive as the Marines. This is very similar to the army's
relationship with its air corps in the 1930's. General Mitchell proved early on that the
airplane would be effective against ground-based targets and even battleships, but for all
the individual's influence, the institution did not accept the evidence presented to it.
Likewise, this article was previewed by army personnel who stated no objections to the
"coolest reception" characterization, and replied that they felt the article was fair and

truthful. On these grounds I stand by the original statement.

Thanks for the input. I look forward to future discussions as I continue my research.

Regards,
Jim