Cross Fit Article in Triathlete (Page 5)

While it may not have been your intent, you have claimed that several people in this thread have no idea what they are talking about despite the fact that they do have a solid grasp of endurance training principles.

In another thread (bricks) you claimed that anyone who disagreed with your stance on bricks because they didn't have enough information or were narrow minded.

You also called out the bear because he disagreed with you and you attacked him for even posting on this site because of his post count.

You will find that most of the people on this site are quite capable of civilized debate and many enjoy discussing topics with those who hold differing opinions.  However, if you continue with your current, "I'm right, you are narrow minded," approach to arguments, you will quickly find that the only person you have to argue with is yourself.

Shane

Just because I don't know in detail the workouts offer on CF/CFE doesn't mean I am not familiar with what some of the athletes following it are doing. Also the CFE webesite presents info and based on that is easy to see how the claims don't match the approach been followed. i.e. "Why are there no long runs/rides/swims (aerobic training) in this type of training? Long runs/rides/swims fall into the category of training we term “long slow distance” (LSD) and is solely aerobic in nature." Any of the workouts suggested on CFE website on 01-17-11 aren't aerobic?

Nevertheless, (to repeat myself) my criticism about CFE is regarding the extraordinary and misleading claims done by the founder presented in your and the CFE website. The fact HIIT is used as the major point to support the amazing claims, well, it is rather misleading. Besides, can't you blame readers to come away with conclusions similar to mine when the founder himself presents this picture? (though I have a feeling why he does that)

Whatever the case is, I am happy to discuss in detail why I believe CF, HIIT or resistance training can indeed be of benefit as a complement to a training program, not to replace it. I have copies to many studies (not just some link to an online website) regarding HIIT, explosive training (plyos) as well as others focusing on VO2 max, MLSS, Lactate Threshold, critical power, critical velocity, vVO2max/pVO2max, etc. As a whole, this evidence presents a complete picture as to why some of the CFE claims come across as nothing but marketing buzz claims.

I have nothing against CF/CFE as a method for people to get in shape or train for endurance events, if that's their choice. In fact, two of my athletes like and do some CF training, they can certainly do much more pull ups or squats than me. Still, prior my knee surgery, neither had a critical power close to mine and theirs only increased after specific CP trainnig.

As a coach, I have full interest in making my athletes better in order for them to achieve their goals, trust me, if CF/CFE would indeed offer that I would have no problem applying their protocols as I am sure many elites athletes also would. I even acknowledged in my very 1st post that some of the reasoning behind it can be a great complement to endurance training. But to go as far as believing it is as good to replace endurance training, no.

Also I'll continue to criticize claims like "endurance athletes don't know how to train" or "generalists are better than specialists" or "CFE is revolutionizing the endurance world". I personally need much more evidence than the blogs of a some AGers who might or might not have good results and which might or might not be directly related to CFE.

If you want to educate me in the CFE approach, explain why I am wrong to criticized their claims and in the process help those BTers interested in it, please, I am all ears. You said: "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." Could you explain to us how HIIT such as the Tabata protocol 'trumps' longer time based training?

IOW, can you tell us what physiological adaptations occur with HIIT in combination with strength training that are greater or better as opposed to let's say a 1 hr swim at Critical Swim Speed, a 5 hr ride at 85% of critical power or a 90 min run at just below MLSS pace? It would be helpful if you can be as detailed as possible (i.e. increase in lactate threshold, glycogen storage, mitochondrial enzymes, etc.) and provide references to the studies supporting this.

Edited by JorgeM 2011-01-19 10:39 AM

Notes on the Triathlete article:

It starts with two success stories of CFE. If their point is to convince us
how great CFE is, then they should pick the best performances obtained with CFE, right? So lets examine the stories.

The article mentions two triathletes with prior experience that started using CFE: Guy Petruzelli and Brittany Rutter.
It is claim that Guy is a professional triathlete, but from a web search, it appears he is not. Lie #1?

And what were the race performances of this triathletes after switching to CFE?
For Brittany the article says ""At Ironman Lake Placid she finished in less than 12 hours and PR’d her run."
From what I could find on the web, the claim that she PR'd her run is incorrect. Lie #2?

For Guy, it says that "he raced an Olympic-distance triathlon and recorded
the fastest split on the 10K run course, 31:48. "
I tried to verify this, and again, according to the web, this is incorrect. Lie #3?

Even if we ignore theses inaccuracies above, these two triathletes did not have a PR performance for the entire event.
So these are the best examples they can give for CFE success?




Edited by DTS 2011-01-19 11:45 AM

to troll or not to troll...

What I don't understand is that, with respect to long course training, how CF/CFE addresses the issue of perepheral system durability.  My understanding is that the biggest issue for most AGs is working to stregnthen their perpheral systems (through higher volume training) in such a way that they can reach their speed potential at a given race distance.  With CF/CFE the volume just isn't there.   

That is an excellent article. I stand corrected - the Tabata protocol is not as great as I thought.

Aaaargh this thread is a car accident... I know I'll be dissapointed but I just can't stop looking at it.

Most everyone here is IN FAVOR of COMPLIMENTING their SBR with weight training, anaerobic endurance training, HIIT etc.

The biggest problem everyone has with CF and CFE is when it's biggest promoters- Brian Mackenzie, Carl Borg and Max Wunderle claim that ALL YOU NEED IS CF/CFE ONLY and that LSD IS CRAP (Actually Brian uses the S-word). But when you look at the actual blogs and training records of CFE athletes, they are most ceratinly not CF/CFE ONLY. Look at the link Max provided. When asked about the inconsistency of his claims, the best he could say is "you just don't understand the complexity of CF/CFE". Just admit that the program is still a work in progress. Don't be stubborn and use the "you just don't get it" excuse. You'd get more credibility if you admitted that these athletes did mostly CF/CFE and some LSD in their training.

Brian Mackenzie is the one who made the claim that Ryan Hall would be a better marathoner if he switched to CF/CFE. It's not hard to understand where all this hyperbole is coming from if you look at the CF main site and the claims Greg Glassman, Dave Castro etc. have made about other professional athletes. It's just how CF likes to stir the pot and get more attention and more followers.

The concepts of CF/CFE are really nothing new or groundbreaking. It's just that CF has really taken advantage of the internet, youtube and social media to create a brilliant business. There's a reason why so many certifications are offered. Convince all your followers that Kettlebells, POSE Running, Paleo Zone Nutrition, Blauer Self Defense etc are the only way to skin a cat and offer $$$ certifications for each.

In the end, take what is good about anaerobic strength training... just be careful of the Kool Aid.

That is a very cool website/blog!

So people aren't knowledgeable about CrossFit Endurance and that's why they bash it?

http://www.crossfitaltitude.com/files/cfj_mcbrian_endurance.pdf

There. Problem solved. Read it. Congrats. You now know CrossFit Endurance.

This user's post has been ignored.

I fail at life.............just sayin

another troll joins in...

one useless post and link...

great analysis of this whole thread!!! seriously!!! thanks!!! (not being sarcastic)



 

No trolling dude. I've been subscribed to BT since 2005, just haven't needed to use the forums.

But since Max's excuse is that everyone doesn't know how CFE works exactly, I figured that this should get rid of the excuse.

Personally, I don't agree with the idea that you can do endurance sports solely on a diet of intervals and stamina/tempo/time-trial runs and work-capacity based workouts all the time. You need some long duration work well beyond 2-3 hours to allow the body to adapt to the physical demands of doing things like an IM or an ultra.

It also doesn't help give you any credibility to the program you promote when the program's own creators seem to have a difficult time in finishing or starting races. But those DNS/DNFs are obviously no fault of the program, they never are.

i take it back... sorry...

... and FWIW I agree with your analysis above... this is pure marketing gimmick for new fitness regimen based on old theories... let's face it the weight loss and fitness industry is a billion dollar a year market... if not more

no hard feelings?

x2!

I find it fascinating (though perhaps, in the end, unsurprising) that threads related to 'movements' in endurance sport (crossfit, chi running, TI swimming, etc.) generate such a heated discussion.

We're cool. I did need to provide more explanation to my original post.

I've said it many times in many places, things like strength training and anaerobic work like what they promote isn't a bad thing, but it needs to be a tool in the toolbox and it has to be used intelligently. But if you're told that this hammer is all you need and its superior to all the other tools in the toolbox and to throw the toolbox out, then everything starts looking like a nail and you got a really weird looking house covered in hammer dimples.

I'm kicking back to see what these people will be like in a few more years on this CF/CFE diet of intervals and tempo runs. I believe that most folks will stop following it and stop doing endurance sports altogether or they'll end up like Mark Twight of Gym Jones who after experiencing some phenomenal gains by doing the anaerobic work of CrossFit had started to fall apart and then realized that he needed some long duration work back in his training before he would lose his aerobic base that took years to develop. In the end, there really is no such thing as a free lunch. http://www.gymjones.com/knowledge.php?id=44

His methods of endurance training series is really nice, you probably already know most of it as at the end of the day it really focuses on the balance of volume x intensity, but I like the non-pc writing style.

Given the previous Kool Aid references, is it just me?


Edited by Goosedog 2011-01-20 8:56 AM

No, you're right on there. Gym Jones use to be a CrossFit gym in the early days. Then after things went south when it came to Mark's own training and he started to question CrossFit's founder, Greg Glassman, Mark was kicked out and there was a great deal of drama. But over the years, things have turned a corner and it seems that those trainers that are banned from CrossFit seem to be doing better now that they're off the 'kool-aid' and they're using rational thought behind their respective sports training.

it's amazing that the CF and CFE backers have disappeared from this discussion...

I could understand that they don't want to get caught up in it but at least put up some type of defense to the last two pages or so...

really...

We're too busy searching google for images of snake oil...........just sayin

i actually thought it was a good discussion but was waiting to hear Max's responses...

seriously...

i went back last night and reread the article and after reading it with this thread in mind, really noticed that there wasn't any evidence as to the benefits of this training regimen other than a few clients and the words of the "founder's" belief in his own product...

i don't know about the previous posters who claim that Guy and Brittany's results are false but i was curious to hear Max's response to those assertions and since he didn't respond, I'd just assume that the results WERE false.

and the interview link was an interview between max and the founder of the program... now if that's not a conflict of interest when it comes to establishing credibility, then I don't know what is...

Much love to everyone here and as virtually all of these discussions go, we continue to beat dead horses and miss the point that I (not speaking on behalf of CF, CFE or any particular person) try to make in these "debates".

Here is where we go awry.  CrossFit is a GPP (general physical preparedness) regimen that advocates holistic, functional fitness across multiple disciplines, time frames and capacities.  Its strength lies in its diversity of movements and time domains (some sessions last 3-4 minutes, others almost an hour depending upon the athlete's ability).  In fact, virtually any movement that is functional (capable to produce power in the most efficient, functional manner) is game in this protocol.  This is the reason why this program is so popular and endorsed by so many in the military, law enforcement and first responders.  The point here is, does a cop know he is going to have to take down a 300lb drug dealer tomorrow or run down a 130lb meth dealer?  This protocol prepares its athletes for the "unknown and unknowable".  Furthermore, this protocol is FREE!  Yes, CrossFit HQ certifies hundreds of people each week (just to go www.crossfit.com every monday for pics of the certs that are run worldwide), however, it is an open source model where every WOD (workout of the day) is published FREE.  Additionally, should there be movements that people are unfamiliar with, there are hundreds of videos showing how to perform each movement.  Have I said this service is FREE?

If one believes that a GPP fitness capability is a good thing to have as a foundation, CFE enters the mix as an enhanced additive.  As I have noted before, the foundation of CFE lies in first executing 4-6 CrossFit WODs per week.  In addition to these WODs, the CFE protocol adds 1 time trial and 1 interval session per sport, per week.  These TT and interval WODs may last as short as 8 minutes or as long as 90-120 depending upon the athlete's goals.  The CFE main site offers these WODs for FREE and even prescribes a short course, long course and ultra course prescription to be followed by athletes training for various distance races.  As an example, on a running TT day, a short course triathlete may be prescribed a 5K run, a long course athlete may be prescribed a 10K run and an ultra athlete may be prescribed a 13.1m TT.  Regardless of distance, such runs are prescribed at 80-100% effort.  Also, contrary to the rhetoric, we DO prescribe going long to test nutrition and pacing protocols, albeit at a greatly reduced frequency than the status quo. 

Since day 1 in my postings here, Slowtwitch or the CFE forums, I have also simply offered insights to athletes who want personalized prescriptions that I offer.  I have done this through their cooperation and selflessness in their hosting of blogs.  We do this so people can stop pontificating about the endless permutations of training protocols and athlete histories ("yeah, it might work for athlete X, but what about athlete Y who has a background in ABC", etc.) and instead read, watch and review the results that these athletes have achieved.  The blogs are unedited, personal and offered to those interested in seeing how real people with real lives are using the protocol.  Period.

What continues to baffle my mind is the constant philosophical musings of those who seem to be more concerned about criticizing the protocol rather than simply (God forbid) allowing for the possibility that this actually works.  The myriad of examples of athletes having success grows every day.  Has anyone used this protocol among the top .0001% of athletes in the world?  No, not yet.  However, in only 2 years of existence there have been several examples of those doing quite well among the top end of the age group segment.  If you are so inclined, look at the results of Jay Swift, Brittany Rutter and Jane Day in 2010.  Each have raved about their experiences and the value the protocol has delivered for them. 

So, what does this mean?  There is another way.  That's all.  Do I have a point of view that it is a better way?  Yes.  Have I said that a traditional LSD protocol doesn't work?  No.  There are multiple ways to be successful and all I try to purport is that there are thousands (if not millions) of athletes who may never even attempt various endurance activities due to being told that one MUST go long. 

As for the rhetoric, this is too vast of a topic to get into, however, the headline is that the existence of this FREE protocol is threatening to many people for various reasons.  Additionally, CFE's founder, Brian MacKenzie is very aggressive with his passion for this protocol and has verbalized this point of view which has rubbed many people the wrong way. 

Net, net, if you're interested in learning more, simply click your mouse and read the blogs of those who have used this protocol and achieved their goals.  Read the back and forth on the CFE forum and try to tether yourself to the results rather than the rhetoric.  Finally, why do so many posts or headlines feature the concept of reduced training time or volume?  That's because so many believe one must go long to get faster over time. 

I don't expect this post to be a panacea to the back and forth, but hope it will distill some of the arguments down to fact rather than hyperbole or assumption.  Flame away!

Max