Cross Fit, the new fast?!?!? (Page 4)

For example, I started working out with a trainer and my run times improved. I wasn't doing anything different with my run training -- doing strength work was the only new variable -- and I wasn't even looking for this benefit.

I am a firm believer in "less is more" but only if it's the right kind of less. I've progressed faster than expected this season on a lot less training than many of my triathlon peers and I believe it's because of the interval workouts and strength training that I do.

So that's why, when I decided to get a tri coach, I went for one who is CFE certified and has a similar "less is more" approach to what I was doing. I have no idea if what we are doing is traditional CFE or not, but I like it (when I'm not stressing, because it's not what everyone else is doing) and the data I've seen has convinced me that the approach has merit.

To address some points made here:

-my training plans are definitely periodized
-I do long workouts. I just don't do a long ride, run and swim every single week.
-It's not just lifting weights (the TRX and Cross-fit workouts are more like circuit training than traditional weight lifting) and I'm not particularly bulked up.
-It's not a shortcut -- these workouts are HARD. Short doesn't mean easy.
-The workouts vary in length. Some are 20 minutes, some are an hour, some are two hours and my long bike rides vary from 3 to 7 hours
-Since I started the season as a couch potato, I am far from an already trained athlete who is just looking to maintain existing fitness.

This type of statements are confusing; while certainly there are some training approaches who develop a cult-like following (like CFE or MAF training) the mistake of those blindly believing in it is the ability to realize we all have different physiologies and training needs. Both sides, CFE on one claiming their way is the best way for those with limited schedule or MAF claiming you have to train 20+ hrs in order to achieve your potential both are incorrect/incomplete.

It is not an either or situation (or at least it shouldn’t), it should be what best training principals apply to a specific athlete given his/her physiological strengths and weaknesses. As I said before, the CFE has some elements that are interesting and any knowledgeable coach can see why it could benefit some athletes. However it is rather optimistic to believe following that protocol exclusively is the best way to achieve max performance for any athlete, specifically when considering the training needs for endurance sports.

CFE is against specificity and unless they manage to provide more than anecdotal evidence from just a few athletes with average results the concept will come short and resemble snake oil given the amazing claims presented. Specially when specificity is been a proven training method over and over and over not only on endurance sports but also skill ones.

The fact an athlete has not improved significantly in 2 years IMO is not something I would like to use as evidence of the success for 'x' training approach. In this case IMO it just shows that for Evan specific physiology he can get away with ‘x’ performance while doing ‘y’ training load. A few years ago he might have trained with what’s conceive as traditional training protocols (who knows how specifically he trained) and this time around he trained following the CFE method. Yet just because one might have been more volume less intensity and now it is the opposite it doesn’t mean his total training load from both instances is any different and because of that you don't see significant improvements.

Presenting the results of one single athlete is risky way to try to validate your argument or this case the effectiveness of CFE, in particular when results are average at best and there is no proof of significants improvements in performance, at least not based on what you have presented. I could post right now the training for one of the Pros we coach who finished 4th at IMLP trainng avg 10 hrs x week and use him as an example to validate our training approach. However that would be deceiving and frankly rather foolish from our end.

The reality is that such athlete has over 20 yrs of endurance experience and has amazing genes hence only him can get away with going sub 9hrs at Placid with such a small trainng load on his 1st IM ever. Some of the more experienced pros he beat that day would required a greater training load of what he did while other faster athletes might be able to beat him in a similar training load. And that just shows how we all have different physiologies which require different training needs. The training is not that complicated (it is not rocket science) sometime it will address more volume, others more intensity, others a balanced mix, what matters is when and how much do what's best for the particular athlete given current fitness leveles and goals.

Best of luck for you and Evan.

"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.  By Crossfitting you will retain the generalist approach, while completing focused anaerobic endurance training you will develop the third wave adaptations necessary to become efficient at your sport/s" >>> More bla bla bla and to my knowledge the specificty concept has produced proven results and significant performances, I am unaware however how many generalists have succeded in let's say winning a marathon, do you know?

I could go on and on, and have even more fun discussing the studies they use a few to justify their entire CFE approach...

CFE has room for people to craft a program that makes sense for them and includes fun things they like to do. Some of my "workouts" are treated like races/events and some are fit into the traditional CFE workout structure. But I get to do them and that's what's important to me.

But, actually, a 3-4 hour bike ride is not outside the CFE protocols, as I understand them and neither is doing OWS or what I would consider a fairly long run.

For example, some ultra-marathoners in my area do 13 mile runs. So that's the HIM distance and it's got to take them at least 2 hours, which is what I consider a long run. But they aren't doing them as a slow, easy run either. They do things like run them all out at 12% incline. This is why I say CFE is not remotely a magic bullet or the easy way out. It's pretty damn hard, if you do it right, and I think that's why it's not for everyone.

BINGO! It's not clinical data. It's an anecdote. It's interesting, but it proves nothing.

As an example, I was reading a biography of a triathlete who was touting training with HR. Her "proof" was that the two years she worked with a coach who trained with HR zones, she had her two best seasons. But the problem is that there are too many variables. Did she have those good seasons because she trained with HR zones or because she trained with a coach? I would say that training with a good coach is really the most important variable and the actual methodology of said coach is often secondary.

Albeit injured and filled with excuses as to why he was not faster.

Except the founder of CF/CFE? Did he not say that Macca would be faster following CF?

Warm-up, go 'all-out' for 20min, rest 5min, all out again for 20min. Take the two average power outputs from those two sessions and average them. Take that as his FTP. Or warmup and go 'all-out' for 60min and take that as his FTP.

A few years ago, so what has he been doing the past few years? CF? Whatever? Long workouts? Sitting and watching TV?

You can easily do an IM on 10hr weeks. The biggest coached team out there, preaches less is more. But when they say less is more, they look at ROI and perform consistent testing to make sure that you are improving. However again only a fool would think that a 30mile ride can prepare you for an IM, you have no idea what it will be like in the saddle for 5-7hours. While 90% of the year you can train for ~10hours a week, you still 'need' to perform a few key long workouts.

People are upset not in that CF is new or different, but that it is being promoting in a fashion that tells new people "Get ROCK HARD ABs in ONLY 6min a day 3 times a week!!!" Unfortunately that is how CF comes out. I would argue that for the average person some CF workouts would greatly help improve overall fitness, but will not make them a better triathlete. Really it depends on someones goals. Go faster? or have better overall fitness?

So for someone new, or someone that is not 'in shape' something is better than nothing. More is more. Not necessarily better.