Cross Fit, the new fast?!?!? (Page 2)

I received a message suggesting I should learn more about CFE before making any conclusions about it because I don’t know what I am talking about so I went to their website. After going through their info page my opinion about change; after I read the interview I believe the “most dangerous man in endurance training” had a few good points presenting however IMO it was sort of confusing the way he presented those points.  After reading their website I now think some of the statements made are plain ridiculous and I now perceive this CFE approach as snake oil.

Here are a few examples of the statements they make:

“Studies demonstrate that the adaptations caused by anaerobic training are similar to high volume endurance training; however, this adaptation comes at much lower training volumes!” And use this study to support their statement: Metabolic adaptations during exercise after low volume sprint interval and traditional endurance training in humans. J Physiol. 2008.

While the study suggested and few others indeed shown the experimental subjects produced certain training adaptation similar to those in the control group (doing endurance training) the above bolded statement misuses the information to justify their statement. For starters the subjects on the study were ‘untrained’ individuals, this automatically make any results hard to objectively evaluate because as I suggested before ANY training will benefit untrained individuals. Another important thing to notice is that the control group performed the training @ 65% of VO2max for only 40-60 min. The results showed both groups produced similar training adaptations while the experimental group worked 3 hrs less per week hence it is easy to assume doing hard anaerobic training will yield the same results as seemingly ‘traditional’ endurance training with less time invested; HOWEVER, this is a very simplistic way to interpret the study results.

As I mentioned on my OP there are studies showing how different training adaptations can be maximized at different intensities and how it is not a matter of what training an endurance athlete should focus the most: volume vs. intensity. But more a function and what is the right mix of training given the athletes needs, goals, etc. In on of the studies I presented (Harms and Hickson 1983, Lucia 2000) it was shown how many training adaptations specific for endurance training one has to double up the stimulus to maximize gains. While on the Dudley 1982, Lenao 2003 studies it was proves how training around ~83% of VO2 max most specific training adaptation for endurance sports were maximally trained, IOW around that intensity most adaptations were take fully improved.

Another example is: “Specificity is the physiological theory that one must train a specific muscle/movement in order to develop strength and efficiency in that muscle movement.  Crossfit avoids this to avoid third wave adaptations (see below) so as to produce athletes that are ‘generalists’ rather than specialized in one area… Third wave adaptations occur through repetitive exposure to movements.  It allows the body to become extremely efficient at movement.  In endurance training the traditional belief is that the more you run, the more efficient you will become.  This is not correct.  Studies show that running economy will be improved more through anaerobic training than endurance training” And use this study to support their statements: Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time by improving running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol. 1999.

This study is been discussed before; basically it was proved how explosive exercise (like polymentrics) can improve running economy (which affected by series of biomechanical and physiological things) however anaerobic training was NOT the main stimulus used on the experimental group vs. the control group. Anaerobic training was a complement for the training not the primarily stimulus which means subjects still did plenty of specific aerobic training; hence their last bolded statement above is nothing more than a manipulation of half information to fit their premise.

Now about their generalist premise: that sounds nice and all for the person who desires just over health and specific training performance and results is not a main priority. Yes you can get some benefit by doing CFE specially if you are 1) untrained, 2) you are not concern to maximize your endurac4en potential and 3) you buy into the less is more idea

If that is your COJ that’s cool but for a endurance triathletes, specifically those looking to maximize their performance CFE won’t do it based on what I read. A simple example; how is that sprinters who obviously followed a similar (maybe not the same) approach as the CFE since their events are all about maximal anaerobic capacity do NOT later become elite marathoners? Why is that? If they follow CFE could they then become elite runners and battle with Haile Gebrselassie the faster marathoner today even though the poor guy can’t jump into a 12 inch box (a weakness perceived by CFE)?

CFE suggest specificity is not a desirable concept to follow, yet I have to use another example: how come is that Lance Armstrong won arguably the toughest endurance sport 7 times by preparing specifically for it? If LA would have followed a generalist approach and used CFE could he have won 10 TdF?

I agree in one thing with the “The most dangerous man in endurance” traditional slow distance training is probably not the best route to follow for the avg Ager. But it is rather short sighted (or plain ignorant) to suggest anaerobic training is where one can maximize and achieve optimal gains when there is A LOT of evidence (both scientific and anecdotal) that proves that a mix of training load volume and intensity produces that. Also it is proven that training at Maximal Lactate Steady State (aka as LT) as the most important training intensity for endurance sports since it is excellent tool for assessing fitness level, predicting endurance performance, and designing training programs and that training while intense and challenging is far from anaerobic training.

In the end we all know this; just because you can run a very fast 1 mile and have the potential to run a great marathon, UNLESS you do the adequate training you WON’T achieve peak performance; and it is been proven that optimal training incorporates a mix training load (volume + intensity) that specifically targets the demands of your main event. Could doing CFE help you complete a race with less training? Sure. Will it allows you to reach your potential for endurance sports? Not a chance. Hey lance ran a Marathon in 3hrs with minimal training, that’s enough evidence than little training is the way to run a 3hr mary and it has nothing to do with his incredible aerobic capacity developed through years of training.