High-Performance Gear

By Tony Budding and Chris Gallo

In Equipment, Videos

June 11, 2011

Video Article

What does Reebok have in the works for CrossFitters? Find out from Reebok apparel director Chris Gallo, as HQ’s Tony Budding visits Reebok World Headquarters in Canton, Mass. for some answers.

Reebok has an entirely new line of gear called Reebok Delta CrossFit, and it’s specifically for CrossFitters.

“It’ll be built for CrossFitters by CrossFitters, and it’s going to be the pinnacle of our training product for Reebok,” Gallo says.

According to Gallo, “It’s not just going to be moisture management; it’s going to be antimicrobial, it’s going to be the best branded yarns in the marketplace, and we’re working with our advanced-concepts group to develop new technologies.”

Gallo continues: “It’s going to be all about fit and comfort first.”

Reebok is equipping the CrossFit athlete with everything from boxers to outer layers—and everything in between. Gallo says Reebok is engineering clothing to manage temperature, odor and moisture, and to block UV radiation. With “cold black” technology, Reebok can even make heat-resistant dark-colored garments.

“Our philosophy’s always, ‘Whatever we put on the best athletes, we bring to the community,’” Gallo says.

7min 52sec

Additional reading: If the Shoe Fits … by Kevin Daigle, published Feb. 7, 2011.

Free Download

Comment

34 Comments on “High-Performance Gear”

1

wrote …

yeah yeah, just gimme a pair of chucks, a pair of shorts, a shirt and the WOD.

2

replied to comment from jared cantrell

I watched some videos. I'm not sure a shirt is necessary. Especially if you have tattoos.

3

wrote …

Reebok, I need a simple minimalistic shoe that looks cool and will last a few months. I dont need anything high-tech, ziggy or with fingers. And I want to pay less money for this shoe than you charge for your high tech shoes because they have less material and money spent on R&D. Maybe like $45. I'd probably end up buying 2 to 3 pairs a year. Be the first to come out with a minimal shoe that doesnt cost near $100...(see: inov8, NB, Vibrams)
I think you would win over a lot of us with low tech and affordable rather than the other way around....at least with shoes
Hope Im not coming across as a Reebok hater, im not. Just wanted to voice what I think is needed and would like to see offered.

4

wrote …

vibram + boardshort = crossfit

5

wrote …

Holy buzzwords.

Just show me the goods. Any time someone has to emphasis the 'literal' impact, I instantly wonder if I'm being deceived. I'm going to assume they recognize that the Reezigs (or whatever they are called) are a joke, and are developing something new. Something that is 'literally' good. Besides the wonderful words, why am I to believe that this isn't just another gimmick?


I bet Jeff Glassman is stoked that Reebok is saving the environment.

6

wrote …

When did Crossfit become about top-of-the-line, high-priced athletic wear??

Ridiculous, although I do love how the video goes out of the way to stress that THIS IS NOT, UNDER ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSTANCES, an attempt at branding. Which, of course, means it absolutely, 100% is, or you wouldn't need to emphasize how much it isn't.

A T-shirt that STARTS at $45?

For a T-SHIRT?!?!?!?!

Sorry, but I'll take my heavily stained $3 white cotton T any day of the week over anything that will set me back $50 after taxes, even if Reebok drops every buzzword they can think of- including "Crossfit"- in front of their gear.

Will this Delta Crossfit wear line include those E-Z Tone shirts that improve my muscle tone while I walk? When can I get my $150 Delta Crossfit Ree-Zigs with E-Z Tone technology?? And, of course, when can I get my Official Reebok Crossfit/STEP/Spin/Rbk Ultra Cold heat gear?

This is not going to end well.

7

wrote …

I wonder if the child workers in the sweatshops where this new gear is being made know about CrossfitKids. Maybe they could bang out a few WODs in the dark between their 15 hour shifts...

8

wrote …

A few of you guys need to chill the eff out. Seriously.

9

wrote …

well, minimalist shoes come with maximalist price ...

just bought the brooks green silence ... they get the job done with a reasonnable cost ...

10

wrote …

Ridiculous,,Why would I spend $40-$50 on a shirt that I will only wear for an hour or so? It will not make me a better crossfitter!

11

wrote …

If i can expect more commercials on the journal I'm going to let my subscription lapse..

12

replied to comment from Jarrett Smith

Agreed.

Unfortunately, Crossfit is getting a bad name due to the attitude of the outspoken few (i.e. the "l33t"). It's not that I totally disagree with what everyone is saying nor do I completely agree, but I think everyone would be better off letting their actions speak rather than their mouth. In other words, don't do anything. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. That's what I intend to do no matter the brand name (or lack thereof).

13

wrote …

All you carebears relax, no brand will ever be able to touch the core of crossfit which is the fitness methodology, workouts, exercises.

If anything, this is a little awareness-WOD to train yourself in critical thinking about marketing and the brand-consumer relationship - which you have with CrossFit as well btw. And hey maybe there's even some worthwhile product coming out of this, and if not, who cares? And dont start with the prices, Under Armour, Oakley, Inov-8s, Eleiko Bars/Plates arent exactly the cheapest stuff you can buy for the sport of fitness either.

14

wrote …

Well Put Robert Livingston

15

wrote …

When they make a shirt that does my deadlift for me, then I'll drop $45. And what about training for the unknown and unknowable...wait a second, let me get my quick-dry, wicking shirt and my compression pants and my skinz arm warmers...okay, now I'm ready for the unknown, ready go.

16

wrote …

1) I don't think that a simple T-shirt is going to cost $45. More like a compression S/S. They have to stay competitive no matter the technology after all there are companies who claim to offer the same super duper fabric technology for around that much money.
2) I really don't get it though. I looked at the comments out of curiosity and I really can't get the attitude. Overpriced? Don't buy it. Overhyped. Don't buy it. You do have a choice. Why do you have to log in and throw a fit about something like that? No one is forcing you to buy anything or watch anything so stop whining.

17

Sean Villagracia wrote …

As skeptical as I am about this whole thing, I'm gonna bite my tongue until I see the goods. Seriously, who's bitching about prices? With the premiums we pay for equipment and box memberships? LifeAsRx, Rokfit, the .com store, etc. may not charge $45 for their clothes, but they're not exactly cheap, either (unless you caught the regionals clearance sales). If you've paid $25 for a cap, $30 for a shirt, $60 for WOD shorts, $100 for Inov-8's, $90 for Vibrams, etc. then you need to chill out.

18

wrote …

Oh man, but I seriously fucking HATE these bullshit infomercials on the journal. It has nothing to do with price. It has nothing to do with hating multi-national corporations. It has nothing to do with Hi Tech, Smart Bomb, Hot Weather, Cold Weather, Plague Resistant clothing that I have never, nor will ever need to do a workout. It does however have EVERYTHING to do with Reebok, and CrossFit by association lying to us in a blatant grab for a bigger market share.

19

wrote …

The Games aren't everything that CrossFit is about, but they are the show horse of CrossFit - they get everyone hyped, they bring fresh interest to our sport. And a huge purse (what is it - $1M total??) is a definite way to pique interest. If bringing Reebok, ie - big prize money, into the games boosts CrossFit enthusiasm and awareness, I think that's all well and good. But like my mom told me about money: No one's just going to give it to you. This is what Reebok gets in return - a new product line and some sales.
Slightly annoying to see this type of video on the journal? Sure. But what I've learned here is to just ignore future videos with Reebok in the name, or at least approach them with a very large grain of salt.

20

Dave Astley wrote …

I think Reebok should give the people what they want. As far as I can see there seem to be 2 camps in Crossfit; those who are minimalist and those who love the Tech. So do both! A Classic line and a Tech line- sorted.

21

wrote …

Reebok symbolizes progress; a natural evolution of CF that will make us far more than we could have become on our own, if managed with the integrity Glassman promises. I just completed the Central East Regionals this past weekend. While Reebok made things a little "gamier" with their marketing gear and competitor chotchkies, I barely noticed it because once again the community effect took over.

As for "Reebok-wear", let it come. And if they're apparell heads are looking for general community feedback on where to start, I'd welcome the opportunity to give some input on ladies' sportbras. Nike and Champion are kicking Reebok's butt in this area, designing for women who've sacrificed any sort of breasts for broader lats and pecs.

22

wrote …

Under Armour already does this for me. But more options don't hurt.

Reebok is not just in this to change the fitness industry; they are in it to make money on clothes, shoes, etc. - just like any business or corporation. CrossFit is the premiere fitness brand (IMO) in which Reebok NEEDED to even compete against the big dawgs (Nike for example). Reebok was losing market share and this was an essential brand to help 'save' them. It's just natural progression in business. It always comes down to money, always... It's America. Not that it is wrong.

23

wrote …

As sports become more "mainstream" it is necessary to have companies sign on to contribute credibility IOT continue building the popularity/base. For this, I applaud CrossFit teaming up with Reebok. If all goes well, competition amongst the labels will yield more products at better value to the athlete/customer. However, if I were in Reebok's marketing/advertising department, I'd count this CrossFit Journal video as a PR slip-up. Honestly, I am not excited about a product if you talk about how expensive it will be. I understand that you're using space aged yarns/fabrics, but once you start to mention how expensive it will be, I will turn you off. I'd rather hear about the performance etc, and then let me deal with the sticker price at the store rather than before I even want to check out this new high-speed t-shirt.

Concur on all the comments about "minimalist" shoes. Does seem a bit ridiculous but I anticipate the price to drop as they become more popular.

24

wrote …

This is ridiculous, if I want to get Reebok propaganda stuffed down my throat I'll just watch some second class sporting event on TV. This is the crossfit Journal, this is where I read about the ten elements of fitness, not how Reebok as a company is going to revamp itself. I didn't pay $25 a year for Reebok commercials or get the biography of all of the Reebok employees, I understand I signed up for this, but come on, I signed up for Crossfit, not a Reebok update once a week.

Other companies have been doing this "pinnacle" clothing for years: anti-odor fabrics, wick away sweat t-shirts, and compression lines; and now all of a sudden Reebok is developing it. Did they develop the "tone ups" in that advanced lab of theirs too. Reebok is a joke, at the north west regional I saw maybe 2 competitors wearing Reebok shoes, but trust me, both pairs of shoes were shown in the pictures provided on the facebook pages and recap videos. So instead of the viewers possibly seeing a crossfitter doing something amazing, you see the athletes who chose to wear the free Reebok shirts they were provided. In the vendor area, the AsRx'd and crossfit store were being pillaged while the Reebok section was left abandoned. At the end of the day, lets just call a spade a spade here. Whether the T-shirt costs $15 or $45, its still Made by Reebok, they can call it a "tone up" or a "pump" or a "zigzag" its still made by Reebok and the name goes along with its reputation of a lackluster company that always seems a step behind its competitor.

It seems to me that crossfit was a rapidly growing ideal of fitness, and Reebok was a dieing brand. Now they will be forced to carry the Reebok name on its back for 5 years until it can get rid of it and move on, when they could have just held out for another year or two and gotten a much better deal from a real company. Good for Reebok, I guess they'll come out on top after this one.

25

wrote …

good content > advertising

26

wrote …

It was horrible today. I walked into a box and a Reebok sales team pinned me down, took my credit cards, and charged me for 9 $45 dollar shirts! This is a disaster!

Then, I saw this Reebok advertisement on the Journal and I watched every second because I was afraid the Reebok sales team would be back! My CrossFit fitness is now nightmareland!

Whoops, meant to say "reactionary buffoons, are you for real?" Or are you non-CFers with wild hair making trouble for the fun of it?

Freedom of association means you cannot be injured by anything Reebok offers for sale, but you can certainly ruin your own lives by hyper reactionism. CF can be had for free. Why anyone would be upset if it can also be had for a ton of money is beyond conception; except that those folks are just looking for a reason to get upset. Or, they are just pulling chains for entertainment. Hope it's the later.

27

wrote …

Paul,

Does my previous comment sound more legit if I say the video is all narrative and no data? All I can do is judge Reebok's products by what they have shown me. They have a history of using outrageous, incorrect and misleading descriptors of their products.

I don't care about the price of the products. I'm glad people are making money off good ideas and hard work. But this stretches the bounds of "ponder, study, debate and define fitness and collectively advance the art and science of optimizing human performance".

No, I don't own or run the CFJ. I have no stake in it. I generally enjoy what is presented, despite playing devil's advocate on a semi-regular basis. This piece just sticks out as being a poor addition to the archives. Evidence-based fitness and big, exciting adjectives for clothing!

28

wrote …

Which means overpriced gear. Most of the stuff I see in the stores is made overseas with cheap labor and they charge $100+. There's no reason for jacking the average consumer for a t-shirts or a pair of shoes.


This is pretty much targeting the Crossfit Elite. The cream of the community that was no stranger to competing at a high level in college, semi-pro and pro sports. The ones that usually end up at the top of the podium when all the dust settles. More power to them. Like those of the NFL, NBA and MLB, they are a rare breed. A very small percentage. They are already accustomed to training hard and doing what it takes to be at the top. The rest of us working stiffs who just use Crossfit as a tool to improve our conditioning will surely make the smart decision to not deplete our wallets and side with eating and paying our bills. Plus how many of the elite crossfitters will actually HAVE to pay for any of this overpriced stuff anyway? Like any other sport, the top people just get stuff thrown at them almost on a daily basis.


I'm not so sure this is in line with the original spirit or philosophy of Crossfit. Some say it's a natural evolution and that people shouldn't complain because they already pay a premium for working out at boxes and for gear. Personally, I can't afford either one. I guess if Crossfit wants to be lumped in with other major sports that would be true. I mean look at Football and Basketball. The marketing machine has people buying $150 high tops and $50 shirts. I thought one of the main things Crossfit was about was being different. Hell, I afford Under Armour shirts or Nike Free shoes. The originals of the AA brand makes for a good story, but hardly worth the price. Although I have bought a net bag and water bottle at their semi-annual product sales where they unload all their stuff that either doesn't sell well, has stitching mistakes or is irregularly sized for pennies on the dollar.


I have nothing against Reebok wanting to develop new gear while at the same time wanting to be profitable. I just don't think in today's economy, when more and more people are struggling, developing something that Tony admits 'isn't going to be cheap' is going to gain you any friends. I'll stick with my Target long sleeve Tees and $45 Sports Authority Nike Monarchs, Vans or Chucks.

29

wrote …

No more commercials on the CrossFit Journal please. Put up banners, sponsor athletes and games and boxes and you will earn our respect. Putting commercials on the Journal about high-tech (read 'completely unnecessary') clothing is just annoying. Knock it off CrossFit HQ.

30

wrote …

By the way, in response to Griff Braun's comment above: sharing your ignorance is libelous. I've been to the factories; there is no child labor, there are no 15 hour shifts in the dark. Probably best not to slander without first-hand knowledge.

31

replied to comment from Scott Pfeifer

Scott, I hope you are right. I would very much like to be wrong about this, but I don't think I am. I am curious, though, about your experience in Reebok's factories, and how that came about. Much of the manufacturing of this kind of apparel is done in "export processing zones" and/or outsourced to factories like the Ocean Sky Apparel Factory in El Salvador (http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports?id=0623), and the only honest assessment of what goes on inside those factories is done covertly by NGOs. Reebok is owned by Adidas, which does have some history with child labor problems (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/nov/19/jasonburke.theobserver) and work conditions like those I described in my post. However, they may have changed their ways in terms of child labor, and as I said, I'd be happy to be wrong about that. However, the sweatshop model of manufacturing still seems prevalent. As I said, though, I am honestly curious about your experience in the factories and in what capacity you visited them. I would be interested to hear about it, but if this is more conversation than you bargained for, I understand. I appreciate your other comment as well. All the best..

32

They are called chucks. And all of you saying that you didnt pay $25 to watch reebok commercials sound so ridiculous. Where else can you find so much valuable information for so little. Don't watch the videos if you hate them so much.

33

wrote …

Why doesn't Reebok partner up to support the Steve's Clubs to help the youth of the country, or with OP Phoenix to support the spread of CrossFit to the military? I am not going to say this is any sort of a "sell-out" move because I agree that this is a sound business decision. However, I feel there has been a significant shift in focus @ CFHQ and this could have detrimental impacts on the image as a whole of the brand.

People get swept up in the mentality and "kool-aid" gets chugged and passed around left and right and now there is the risk of people losing sight of the true purpose of this training and workout methodology- to improve personal capacities and make the common man or woman more physically capable than they thought possible. This does not mean everyone at every affiliate should be focused on competing at working out. Competition breeds community withing the boxes, but I have also seen it breed contempt as favoritism and focus on competitions and the competitors has taken precedence in many boxes. This is unfortunate.

Where are the videos designed to improve coaching, develop athlete technique and inspire and educate the CrossFit community? I don't mind being educated about new products, but let me see comparisons in order to make an informed decision for myself. Bring back the sense of community, get away from the non-sense related to focusing only on the games and competitors and professional worker-outers and put up some vids that make coaches more capable of improving the lives of our clients in ways that they never thought possible.

34

replied to comment from Michael Snyder

+1

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)