Cross Fit Article in Triathlete (Page 3)

OK, so let me see if I understand this:

They witnessed speed skaters doing interval workouts, and then put them on bikes so that they could measure the changes in fitness, and some coach decided to keep the bikes as part of (not a replacement to) the existing training.

Is that a fair assessment?

If so, then I don't have an argument against it. It sounds great. Because it's a balanced program.

I am familiar with the tabata protocol and similar others.  but, again, the participants had years of endurance background.  Also, we all know about the "500 day" concept, that if you take a couch potato and have them do anything for 500 days, they will perform better is also a valid concept. 

looking at the fat part of the bell curve and, what i am trying to drill down on (sorry, I'm a lawyer so i keep asking questions until I am satisified that i understand a concept) is: for me the guy who does not come from an endurance background but played lots of sports and isn't afraid to suffer, can CF prepare me for longer course events, be they running, biking or swimming?  What I am having a trouble intellectualizing is how you can get ready for a marathon, IM, ultra, etc. without putting in tons of miles (which equals tons of time, which I dont have).  I am not looking for short cuts, I am looking for the best way to maximize my performance given a scarse commodity (time). 

Thanks to all, max and jorge in particular for bringing their experise and knowledge to this discussion. 

stated in the context fo this discussion: adding CF to a great tri specific program will increase performance.

Thanks; it was my understanding that at least one of the athlete's discussed in the article was sponsored by CF/CFE.



Could you distill these results out?  I don't have time (or the inclination) to go through someone's blog to find their PB's before CF/CFE and after.  However, everything I have read about different athlete's performance to this point has either been athletes under performing in long and ultra distance events, going slower than their pre CF/CFE PB's or being on target for a great race and falling apart on the run.

Shane

Maybe not "will", but "could".

Ultimately, the question is a matter of "What are my goals?"

If you want to run a marathon, and you have no concern about how long it takes, then you could easily do one. There's a lot of them out there to pick from, and many with no time limits. I've seen people successfully complete marathons on fewer miles per week than I ran in basic training for the Army.

If, however, your goal is to maximize your performance at any distance, you start to get into the risks/rewards in regards to your other goals in life. How much time do you have? What is more important right now to you, and how does that affect things?

Ultimately, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Whether CF/CFE will make you a better athlete in running, triathlons, or whatever is going to be a highly individualized experiment, with lots of variables. Personally, I wouldn't even attempt CF/CFE because I see no benefits for me as an individual. If others use it, and it meets their expectations and helps with their goals, then have at it.

But I honestly do not think you can do your best by limiting your training time and exposure to the specifics of a given sport. CF/CFE could work well for many people if it is in addition to a good training program, as it will improve strength and power. But using CF/CFE workouts in place of time spent doing sport-specific workouts won't be as effective in the long run.

The skaters may have already been doing the interval workouts on bikes and Tabata decided to keep what they were doing. But otherwise, your assessment is correct.

The Tabata research is really "useless" and the reasons are:

1) The improved "aerobic capacity" is actually improvement in VO2max.
However, VO2max is not really "aerobic capacity", and moreover,
VO2max is a poor predictor for performance on endurance events,
and performance is what really matters.

2) It was done on untrained subjects (not on speed skater as you claimed).
So it doesn't tell anything about trained subjects.
Moreover, it was only conducted for 6 weeks.
Are the Tabata intervals still effective after 6 weeks?

3) The Tabata study only compared two options: either all workouts are low-intensity steady-state, or all workouts are high-intensity intervals.
However, the correct way to train is to *COMBINE* both type of training.
This combination gives better results than doing only one type of training, and apparently the CFE people do not understand this point.

AGers biggest limiter without a doubt is time availability. Given our life priorities plus our desire to train we have to make choices every day to balance  endurance sports training and paying attention to things that our important to us like family, work, friends, etc.

Given this time constraints, AGers have to make decisions as to what they want to accomplish in endurance sports and whether they have the time to accomplish said goals. If an athlete approaches me and asks me if he/she can qualify for Kona by training 5-10 hrs per week or qualify to Boston only running 'so much', my answer would depend on the specifics of that particular athlete. For some I might say yes, for some I might say no and for others I might say hell no!

The problem with these discussions is when people debate from extremes; like those supporting CFE or on the other side of the spectrum those supporting only high volume/low intensity aka LSD. Both or neither might work depending on the athlete. But why does it have to be one or the other even for the time constricted athlete? The fact is athletes have different needs based on fitness, time availability, genes, age, gender, athletic background, etc. IOW the 'one-size fits all' approach are trying to sell is rather misleading, in particular considering the claims used to support it.

The reason many of us criticize CFE is not because we don't understand it can be beneficial in some degree as a complement for endurance training (though one doesn't need to follow CFE to accomplish this). What we are critical about is of the misleading statements such as HIIT is a better way to train for endurance sports, characterize the addition of HIIT/specific resistance training as 'revolutionary', use some HIIT studies results somehow out of context HIIT to justify all their claims, state that specificity doesn't work, or simply that endurance athletes/coaches doesn't know how to train. (At risk of questioning I making things up just read CFE website or this interview: http://www.gotrimax.com/TriMaxBmac.htm)

As the saying goes: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary results." The reality is the CFE to my knowledge has none. Does many athletes PR using CFE? sure. Is the PRs significant to allocate all the success to their approach? Maybe, maybe not. Does many people PR or even accomplish greater results by following a simple common sense approach (i.e. a mix of training easy, moderate, hard, very hard, short, mid distance, long-distance)? Definitely!

The latter is a fact and not some marketing claim aimed to sell a product/service. Many athletes and coaches have used that common sense approach for decades producing some of the best endurance athletes in the world.

Anyway, in your case if you only have 5 hrs of training per week and want to use CFE to participate and finish a IM or Ultra. Sure, give it a try but understand it limitations as it might or might not be a great option given your particular needs/limitations.

Hmm, from what I understand, VO2max is the very definition of aerobic capacity. You're confusing aerobic capacity with specificity. I agree that if you took a cross-country skier with a high VO2max and had him swim 2 miles, the skier may perform quite poorly in the swim simply because swimming is not part of his training. But that just means he is a bad swimmer - he still has a high aerobic capacity. And I would be willing to bet that if the skier received proper training, he would quickly become a very good swimmer based on his existing aerobic engine. While VO2max may not be the best predictor of success, it is important - plain and simple.



Based on my recollection, the study was done on Olympic-level skiers. The actual study is out there on pubmed - I'm just too cheap to buy it.



Do you do science much? This is what scientific studies do - they test two things and two things only. However, there have been many follow-up studies to Tabata and some have tested the combined training approach against traditional approaches. And I, for one, agree with your assertion that a combined training approach is best. I've never argued otherwise. At the end of the day, a sub-four minute miler may have great aerobic capacity, but his legs will not be prepared to run 26.2 miles.

this might seem like a silly question but how does crossfit endurance differ from something like endurance nation.. why the exercises are obviously different, the structure seems to be the same. higher intensity training, taking less time then normal training?

I did crossfit for a couple months last summer and would have kept doing it  until I broke ribs/hand in a bike accident.  While I was doing it I was thinking and asking questions to the instrucors on how I would completement it once my tri training started up again in dec.

To me it seemed like a nice compliment to other weight/resistance training that I would be doing at the gym.

Ritz would argue that his legs are quite prepared to run 26.2.

Quoting the Tabata paper:

"Subjects. Young male students majoring in physical education volunteered for the study (Table 1). Most were physically active and were members of varsity table tennis, baseball, basketball, football (soccer), and swimming teams. After receiving a detailed explanation of the purposes, potential benefits, and risks associated with participating in the study, each student gave his written consent."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6562458/HIIT-VO2-Research

Edited by DTS 2011-01-18 3:21 PM

I feel slower and less prepared just by having read that.

"Instead of your “Sunday run” of 2 hours, you work on getting your back squat up to 350?"

Only 40 more pounds to go...

I think it is worth noting there seems to be a misunderstanding regarding HIIT (in general not necessarily referring to you). It is commonly accepted HIIT refers to efforts relying almost exclusively in the anaerobic energy system (i.e. all out efforts lasting less than ~2-3 min) usually performing as many sets as possible until exhaustion.

While EN certainly favors intensity over volume (in the training load equation), their sessions are far from HIIT and more related to MLSS +/-.

I am not 100% familiar with  CFE beyond what I've read on their website and had shared by athletes but based on some of the WODt, many workouts are certainly not HIIT and more related to VO2max or even high MLSS, which is why I think using some of the studies relying on HITT to support their amazing claims are rather misleading, and why I think the format of those sessions are far from "revolutionary".

Sorry in advance Jorge, but I couldn't help myself...

"I am not 100% familiar with  CFE beyond what I've read on their website..."

Priceless.  The CF/CFE protocol trains ALL energy systems (phosphagen, glycolytic, lactic, aerobic).  This is exactly my point.  Please simply do some form of research, reading, investigation before trashing this protocol.  The CFE protocol has workouts as short as a few minutes and others as long as 90 minutes.  Clearly, the aerobic pathway is used extensively in this training, however the foundation is based in strength.

Again, I'm not preaching to convert, just showing there is another way to train.  Some people have had great results doing so, but regardless of the result, we do all we can to provide a free, open source training model that anyone can follow.

Max

If you're going to take some to task for not fully understanding something, then you need to be prepared for people to point out your misunderstanding of the research you're referencing as well.

This user's post has been ignored.

Let's try this again.

"That's rich."  This reference was in rebuttal to a post made alluding to the observation that those associated with CFE were making a conscious effort to market (i.e. take monetary advantage of) to the triathlete market and not the sport specific market of running, biking or others.  For someone to make such a characterization is shallow and ridiculous.

"Priceless."  Well fellas, if you've got another way of pointing out someone's blatant admission that they don't know what they are talking about, please offer an alternative.  I believe many who subscribe to traditional volume based triathlon training believe, truly in their hearts, that the CF/CFE protocol is somehow false, damaging and misleading to most triathletes.  If you agree with this premise, then clearly you can see how hypocritical and misleading it is for them to cast stones at other protocols without their very attempt to understand the protocol! 

As for my misdirected description of Dr. Tabata's protocol parameters, thanks for the heads up!  Here is a link formalizing his relationship with the National Japanese speedskating team http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1608/is_5_20/ai_n6011850/

I must also point out that the point of my bringing up Dr. Tabata's information has been lost.  The initial poster of this thread was questioning how shorter timed intervals could trump longer time based training.  The Tabata protocol begins to show how this is possible. 

Max

Actually it doesn't, and that's been pointed out several times in this thread already. 

In the magazine article, it is claim that
"   On Oct. 24 he [Guy Petruzzelli] raced an Olympic-distance
triathlon and recorded the fastest split on the 10K run course, 31:48."

Anyone know where are the results of this triathlon?
I searched for the results, and found that on Oct 24, he did a duathlon.
http://itsracetime.com/Results.aspx?ID=169
Also, the running parts of this duathlon were 1.8/3.6M, and his running splits
were 10:28.7 & 25:24.0, which is far from running 10K in 31:48.
Did I make a mistake here, or is the claim in the article is wrong?

ok. let me try and summarize, what I think answers my initial question:
1.  having a good aerobic base is important to being an endurance athlete.
2.  the lydiard/maffetone approach can be supplemented by a tabata-type approach

so we are really back to what the 80 year old guy who did his 20th Kona in October said: train all the time, eat clean and "I think you should go anaerobic every day", alternatively, there are no short cuts in life.

This user's post has been ignored.

Edited by Fred Doucette 2011-01-19 6:17 AM

Here's a review of the article that is very informative.

Lyle McDonald review of Tabata study

Regarding this specific point:

I think there's a misunderstanding of Lydiard's methods (and possibly Maffetone's as well, I don't know enough about his stuff).

Lydiard didn't advocate doing everything at an easy effort. Even if you look at his "base" training stuff, you see all different levels of effort. I know he had his athletes do some pretty intense workouts, including some rough hill repeats. I don't think it's a matter of supplementing with higher intensity workouts. I think it's just a misunderstanding of the overall training approach.