As a field of study, kinesiology is realized in different places and locations as a multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and, very rarely, transdisciplinary project. In the words of the American Kinesiology Association, it is an academic discipline that involves the study of physical activity and its impact on health, society, and quality of life. With varying intensities and emphases, kinesiology draws from biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy and includes multiple subdisciplinary areas (e.g., biomechanics, sport history, exercise physiology, sport pedagogy; Gill 2007). However, this is a far from integrated field. Indeed, with Andrews (2008), in its current iteration, kinesiology is a field fraught with hyperfragmentation and hyperspecialization in which there is instantiated an epistemological hierarchy that privileges positivist over postpositivist, quantitative over qualitative, and predictive over interpretive ways of knowing. In this article the authors argue that failure to fully acknowledge and support the contribution of social-, cultural-, philosophical-, and historical-focused research and understanding precludes the actualization of kinesiology's expansive intellectual promise, impact, and potentialities. The central thesis is that the lean and mean kinesiology presently operating within the (corporatized) academic jungle precludes the development of the field as a comprehensive and integrated approach to the study of human movement. The authors argue that it is explicitly clear to see ''whose knowledge counts'' (Ingham and Donnelly 1990) within the ''prestige hierarchies'' of the contemporary university and whose does not (see also Miller and Ahluwalia 2011). They argue further that this not only is damaging to the field--it is bound to suffer from the structural inadequacies and partialities that will become inherent within the discipline--but ultimately destabilizes the possibilities for higher education as a site of intellectual advancement, social justice, and critical and autonomous thinking. They argue that the epistemological hierarchy associated with a McDonaldized kinesiology is something that we all need to forsake, in favor of more epistemologically balanced, empirically wholesome, and intellectually stimulating kinesiological fare.