Recovery=Pampering? Crossfit and rugby, so many questions

While the clock ticks away and I wait for the moment that I get my paycheck and can leave for the airport (and pray that my flight from ATL to PHL is on time and without incident), I've been trolling the internet for ideas that will inform the transformation of our garage to home gym. And I stumbled upon some Crossfit stuff along the way.

I know there are some big time Cross-Fit fans out there, so I encourage you to speak your peace. But I have to wonder just a little bit about some of the training philosophy.

In this article, written by the founder of Crossfit, the author states that 'those most inclined to worry and ask about “overtraining” are about as likely to set a new record in the Olympic Decathlon as they are to ever overtrain' . He also states that 'If we clump the recuperative modalities together as “pampering” what my clinical practice suggests is that the pampered athletes are generally performing below the 50-percentile mark. Those most inclined, for instance, to yoga, meditation, and chiropractic treatment are not our fire-breathers.'

So recuperative modalities, among them listed as stress control, massage, sleep, contrast hydrotherapy, hydration, recreation, stretching, and chiropractic treatment, qualify under the Crossfit model, as pampering.

REALLY.

While I agree wholeheartedly that mental toughness is developed under intensely anearobic activities, the leap to treat recuperative techniques as 'pampering' is a little out there. It's so easy for us as coaches to leap right into the blame game, and shout out that the unsuccessful player of the unsuccessful team simply 1) wasn't trying hard enough 2) didn't want it enough or 3)isn't mentally tough enough, instead of identifying specific weaknesses and creating specific plans for improvement.

A friend of mine who coaches at a very high level tells me that she almost always needs to reduce the amount of time and the number of repetitions that players do in training, in order to improve quality and get tangible results. The cross fit philosophy seems in contrast to this ...

At its core, the methods that drive Crossfit are stated as being "empirical". It's an interesting choice of words, with definitions that are someone in conflict...

em·pir·i·cal –adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Basically, its the "it worked for me and for others, therefore it's valid" argument.

I can't even count the number of players who define a workout as "good or bad" based upon how hard they breath or how close to vomiting they get. Crossfit clearly appeals to this personlaity type. Think you're tough? Not unless you do our workout you aren't!

Quick, let me jump on board and do pullups and squats till I vomit. I'll show you tough!!!

Is this sort of training intensity good on a regular basis? Shouldn't the training be gaged by the on-field results? Will training to that level exhaustion translate to on field results?

So does Crossfit have it's basis in science or not? Does it have a place in rugby? Will it make you faster, better at tackling, or more evasive? Should we use it for general fitness or for developing mental toughness?

And to the bigger question, is harder, faster, MORE MORE MORE the answer to all our training woes? Are recuperative methods "pampering", and if so, does it matter?

If you've got personal experience you'd like to share, I'm all ears.