Cross Fit Article in Triathlete (Page 7)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() pschriver - 2011-01-20 5:01 PM DerekL - 2011-01-20 4:25 PM Scout7 - 2011-01-20 2:53 PM The point is that no one hear here is saying that CF/CFE is worthless, or that it's somehow not effective at its stated purpose (specifically general fitness). What people are saying is that it is not the most effective way for most people to train for endurance sports. That is all. Exactly. Now it's exactly rite Just shooting for 10 pages Hey, give me some credit. That was a long post overall, and only one typo. I'm doing better than Derek in the words to typos percentage. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Scout7 - 2011-01-20 4:25 PM pschriver - 2011-01-20 5:01 PM Hey, give me some credit. That was a long post overall, and only one typo. I'm doing better than Derek in the words to typos percentage.DerekL - 2011-01-20 4:25 PM Scout7 - 2011-01-20 2:53 PM The point is that no one hear here is saying that CF/CFE is worthless, or that it's somehow not effective at its stated purpose (specifically general fitness). What people are saying is that it is not the most effective way for most people to train for endurance sports. That is all. Exactly. Now it's exactly rite Just shooting for 10 pages Know your knot. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Just read through this entire thread and have to say I'm pretty disgusted with how it turns so ugly. Of course its all the usual suspects spewing off at something they know little about — clearly too much time on your hands (as evidenced by some of your training logs).Many of the most incendiary posts in this thread seem to come from some folks who train very little and have acccomplished very little... just sayin' I'm not posting here to tell you that CF/CFE is the only way and if you don't agree you're a loser, i'm just saying train the way you want to train and let other do it the way they want to do it and maybe try to open your mind to the fact that there IS more than one way. What works for me may not work for you and vice versa. I'm a three time ironman and have been road racing and doing tris for a several years. Didn't really get started til I hit age 40, but have been doing it ever since. I do okay in my age group and sometimes land on the podium. I race because its fun and I've met a lot of great people through the sport. I've done three IMs in the last three years. LP08, LP09 and AZ10. For both LP IMs, I coached myself using the BeIronFit program and had good success. For Arizona this past year I knew I couldn't put in the time I had in the past due a new and way more demanding job and other life stresses. Additionally, mentally I didn't want to spend 5 hours on a bike on a Saturday morning — add prep time and cool down/clean up and its easily an 8 hour day. Work, my family, the dog and other interests keep life balanced. I worked with Max to prepare for Arizona using the CF/CFE. In addition to the CF workouts, I did plenty of s/b/r, but not as much as I've done in the past. It took some adjustment I will admit to go from long slow to short and intense. Most of my 2010 season was just working through this transition AND dealing with my busy work and personal life. But it got me to Arizona where I was able to achieve a 42 minute PR. Additionally, I PR'd a half iron in September before AZ. So it worked well for me and I found new ways to be fit and get strong. For 2011, I plan to continue with CF/CFE as I really dig the overall fitness I've gained not just for racing but for everything else in my life. I'm strong all over, eat really well, have been able to simplify my race nutrition strategy and just generally enjoy more time and balance in my life. So my point is — don't discount it because you don't think its the way for YOU to train. Just open your mind to fact that some people have had success with it and maybe there's something you can take away from it. My message to most of you though is that it would be great if you could just grow up... maybe go for a run or something instead of spewing your ignorant rants on what could otherwise being an interesting discussion. pam www.itri2.blogspot.com
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stumfossil - 2011-01-21 12:06 AM clearly too much time on your hands (as evidenced by some of your training logs).
I don't use BT to log my training.........just sayin |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Questions for Max. 1) CFE training has no periodization (according to the CFE website). Why? 2) CFE training contains a lot of metabolic circuits (metcons). What adaptations occur with this training that have benefits to SBR performance? Why replacing these workouts with SBR workouts will not improve your SBR performance? 3) The Triathlete article mentions that Guy Petruzelli did an Olympic-distance tri with 31:48 run split. I tried to verify this but couldn't. Can you clear this up? 4) For success stories, you say to look up results of e.g. Jay Swift. I've looked at his results and this is what I've found: 2010 results IM: 10:49:48 HIM: 5:05:10 4:47:19 5:02:54 Half marathon: 1:32:11 2009 results IM: 11:15:18 HIM: 4:46:44 Half marathon: 1:29:46 If indeed this is correct (it is possible, for example, that some of the results belong to a different Jay Swift), then it appears that in general, his perfomance with CFE is slightly worse. Moreover, in the video http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/09/lakeplacid-ironman.tplJay Swift says that previously, his training included no intensity, and no weight work, so he is a perfect candidate for actually getting improved performance from the stitch to CFE. And yet he didn't. Can you comment on this? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gvey - 2011-01-21 1:33 AM stumfossil - 2011-01-20 11:06 PM My message to most of you though is that it would be great if you could just grow up... www.itri2.blogspot.com
Wow. I'm glad you're here to keep us in line. So, is it just us non-believers who need to grow up, or do the crossfitters fall into that category also? Actually not here to do anything for you. Rarely read or post in these forums at all because most discussions end up like this one. Its of little or no value to me... |
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() Pam, If you read through all the posts carefully, you will see that no one is trying to be purposefully ignorant. It has been stated many times in this thread that pretty much everyone agrees that CF/CFE can be a great way to build and maintain general fitness. Additionally, I think it's been clearly stated that most people feel that it's perfectly OK to train using whatever protocol you like. You are correct in that there is no singular way to skin a cat, so to speak. I fully believe this to be true, especially considering that the overall goal of most people here is to enjoy themselves in what they are doing. That being said, as I have also stated several times, both in this thread and others, I firmly believe that CF/CFE is not the optimal way to train to meet your full potential in endurance sports. That belief is based on personal experience spanning several years of running, as well as watching the training of others. I'm not an expert, I'm not a coach, I'm not an elite athlete. I have no stake in how the rest of the world trains. I provide what little help I can when it is asked for, and I provide my opinion on training protocols when I feel it is warranted. If you would like to explain your experiences with CF/CFE and how it incorporated into the rest of your training, I'm quite sure there are several people here, including myself, who would be interested to see how you did it all. I admit that I'm of the opinion that time spent doing sport-specific training is better than general training, but I am always interested in seeing how other people train. Unfortunately, that's not what this thread has been about. Several claims have been made by both sides, and the real meat has been lost in the shouting and rhetoric. I apologize for my part in that, but feel that by the end I made my point clearly. If not, I hope you and anyone else who doesn't feel that way, or has any questions about my general training philosophy, would feel free to ask me to expound upon it further, and i would gladly do so. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stumfossil - 2011-01-21 6:42 AM gvey - 2011-01-21 1:33 AM stumfossil - 2011-01-20 11:06 PM My message to most of you though is that it would be great if you could just grow up... www.itri2.blogspot.com
Wow. I'm glad you're here to keep us in line. So, is it just us non-believers who need to grow up, or do the crossfitters fall into that category also? Actually not here to do anything for you. Rarely read or post in these forums at all because most discussions end up like this one. Its of little or no value to me... You're not missing much.......nothing but weekend warriors in here reliving their youth one speedo at a time! |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I was going to stop responding, but the last few posts compelled me to say one more thing. The defensiveness of the Crossfitters on this thread are exactly what people are talking about when they say that it rubs people the wrong way. You're all right in that it turned out ugly, but there are a few select individuals who made it that way when they could not answer factually to honest critical analysis and decided to start throwing out personal shots at people. Pam, honestly your posts disappoints me. I see that you're jumping in because of your association with Max. You throw out personal shots just like some of the other posters (go train because your logs look empty? Really?) and ignore what's ACTUALLY been posted. Nobody is saying that CFE doesn't work. We're saying that's it's not optimal for endurance sports, and nothing's been posted to refute that. That statement is met with angry retorts such as yours rather than an honest discussion about the comparison of CFE to traditional endurance training. If you think criticism of a protocol is "ugly" then why bother with message boards? All protocols should be subject to critical review. Not sure why it's taken so personally. Nobody is attacking you or anybody else. Max gets his share of flack because of claims he's made in the past that he can't back up and his unwillingness to engage in discussion to that end. I don't Max is a bad guy. I think he's just so caught up in what he teaches that he can't step back and look at it objectively. (Crying uncle in response to criticism). And one more time for anybody who hasn't read it 50 times already on this thread. Nobody is saying CFE doesn't work. If it works for you, great. Keep doing it. It's still not been shown to be better than traditional endurance training, and we will continue to point that out until such evidence becomes available. And please stop with all of the personal comments. Everybody. |
![]() ![]() |
Coach![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stumfossil - 2011-01-20 11:06 PM Just read through this entire thread and have to say I'm pretty disgusted with how it turns so ugly. Of course its all the usual suspects spewing off at something they know little about — clearly too much time on your hands (as evidenced by some of your training logs).Many of the most incendiary posts in this thread seem to come from some folks who train very little and have acccomplished very little... just sayin' My training experience, the reasons why I can or can't train or what I have or haven't accomplished are irrelevant for this conversation. That is, my palmares (or lack of) adds nothing to the conversation but since you talk about growing up, this is not a p*ssing contest to see who has done what. It is a simple discussion regarding some very specific 'amazing' claims spout by CFE and Max in this thread. I personally am not attacking CFE and to repeat this for a million time; many of us believe CFE has some elements that are very good for tri training. Some of us even train athletes doing some CF. But to go as far as believing CFE claims that it is revolutionizing the endurance world, well that's nothing but marketing buzz. That is not to say it doesn't work for some people under certain circumstances, but that's not in question here. Their claims seem to have very little or no element of truth as what's CFE promotes and what CFE does apparently are not one and the same. The more we dig in, it certainly shows it has nothing new (read revolutionary) and it is becoming evident, the claims are misleading, the evidence presented to support it is taken out of context and when we tried engaging Max in a discussion to help us clarify it, he chose not to. If they were to claim: "if you have little time for training, make the most our of it by cranking up your S/B/R intensity" that would be an accurate claim, certainly not revolutionary but correct nevertheless. When you claim stuff like: general is better than specific training, endurance/intense endurance/tempo training (referred by them as LSD) doesn't work, HIIT provides greater fitness gains, elite endurance athletes don't know how to train, no periodization is better, etc. then at best you are misleading and at worst you have little understanding about endurance training and physiological adaptations. I am a coach first and an athlete second, what we are discussing here is training related hence if you want to discuss something along those lines it doesn't matter what I can/can't do. But if you really have interest in that, we can discuss some of the training and results for our female AGers 40-45 y/o for sure. Just sayin'.... |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() and so it goes on... |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stumfossil - 2011-01-21 12:06 AM J I've done three IMs in the last three years. LP08, LP09 and AZ10. For both LP IMs, I coached myself using the BeIronFit program and had good success. For Arizona this past year I knew I couldn't put in the time I had in the past due a new and way more demanding job and other life stresses. I worked with Max to prepare for Arizona using the CF/CFE. In addition to the CF workouts, I did plenty of s/b/r, but not as much as I've done in the past. It took some adjustment I will admit to go from long slow to short and intense. Most of my 2010 season was just working through this transition AND dealing with my busy work and personal life. But it got me to Arizona where I was able to achieve a 42 minute PR.
If I read this correctly, your 42 minute improvement is AZ compared to LP, is that correct? AZ is generally ranked below LP in "toughness" (average finish times, average splits, etc). Do you think you could put a percentage on how much of your improvement was due to course and race/weather conditions and how much was due to a new training protocol? I know that's a tough thing to quantify, but I've found the only thing that really works for me as an accurate gauge of improvement is to compare results from the same race year to year. Of course, I'd guess that 42 minutes is more than just a different course or better weather. ETA - you also posted a 37 minute improvement for LP in 09 over 08. Well done! Edited by mrbbrad 2011-01-21 9:54 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mrbbrad - 2011-01-21 10:50 AM stumfossil - 2011-01-21 12:06 AM J I've done three IMs in the last three years. LP08, LP09 and AZ10. For both LP IMs, I coached myself using the BeIronFit program and had good success. For Arizona this past year I knew I couldn't put in the time I had in the past due a new and way more demanding job and other life stresses. I worked with Max to prepare for Arizona using the CF/CFE. In addition to the CF workouts, I did plenty of s/b/r, but not as much as I've done in the past. It took some adjustment I will admit to go from long slow to short and intense. Most of my 2010 season was just working through this transition AND dealing with my busy work and personal life. But it got me to Arizona where I was able to achieve a 42 minute PR.
If I read this correctly, your 42 minute improvement is AZ compared to LP, is that correct? AZ is generally ranked below LP in "toughness" (average finish times, average splits, etc). Do you think you could put a percentage on how much of your improvement was due to course and race/weather conditions and how much was due to a new training protocol? I know that's a tough thing to quantify, but I've found the only thing that really works for me as an accurate gauge of improvement is to compare results from the same race year to year. Of course, I'd guess that 42 minutes is more than just a different course or better weather. ETA - you also posted a 37 minute improvement for LP in 09 over 08. Well done! Obviously, I'm not the one you asked, but I think the best way to figure out the "course" difference would be to look at the results of finishers in each of those years and do some statistical analysis. I did a detailed one (i.e., I eyeballed it) and would guess that the course benefit alone is maybe in the 15-25min range. So I would ascribe about 20-25min to "individual improvement" in this case. That could be through any combination of improved fitness, nutrition, pacing, etc. As for the rest of this thread, carry on. ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mrbbrad - 2011-01-21 9:50 AM stumfossil - 2011-01-21 12:06 AM J I've done three IMs in the last three years. LP08, LP09 and AZ10. For both LP IMs, I coached myself using the BeIronFit program and had good success. For Arizona this past year I knew I couldn't put in the time I had in the past due a new and way more demanding job and other life stresses. I worked with Max to prepare for Arizona using the CF/CFE. In addition to the CF workouts, I did plenty of s/b/r, but not as much as I've done in the past. It took some adjustment I will admit to go from long slow to short and intense. Most of my 2010 season was just working through this transition AND dealing with my busy work and personal life. But it got me to Arizona where I was able to achieve a 42 minute PR.
QUOTE] Congrats on the improvement. I'd asked early about comparing CFE to the endurance nation approach. Jorge gave me a good answer but I was hoping for someone that is doing CFE to compare. While it could be difficult if you are not familiar with the endurance nation approach. It's basically higher intensity work but of the S/B/R variety. But lower training hours and making each workout count. But if you are familiar with it then it would be great to hear your thoughts. |
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() So is Endurance Nation like FIRST for triathlons? I need a frame of reference. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Scout7 - 2011-01-21 12:36 PM So is Endurance Nation like FIRST for triathlons? I need a frame of reference. Sort of. Basically replacing volume with intensity for portions of the training program, especially on the bike. |
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() JohnnyKay - 2011-01-21 12:39 PM Scout7 - 2011-01-21 12:36 PM So is Endurance Nation like FIRST for triathlons? I need a frame of reference. Sort of. Basically replacing volume with intensity for portions of the training program, especially on the bike. So is it periodized? I assume that it's specific to preparing for a race, and not general training, yes? I suppose I could go google it or something, couldn't I? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Scout7 - 2011-01-21 11:52 AM JohnnyKay - 2011-01-21 12:39 PM So is it periodized? I assume that it's specific to preparing for a race, and not general training, yes? I suppose I could go google it or something, couldn't I?Scout7 - 2011-01-21 12:36 PM So is Endurance Nation like FIRST for triathlons? I need a frame of reference. Sort of. Basically replacing volume with intensity for portions of the training program, especially on the bike. I"m not sure what FIRST is so I can't help ![]() but yes to other stuff you are asking. Not that i'm doing either program right now.. I'm just curious since the draw is that you can train effectively on less time, or less time than some traditional approaches might be a better way of putting it. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Man, how did I miss this thread, it's awesome! Oh, and hey Max, long time! Just for the record, I don't do CrossFit, I have no idea what it is and will likely never do it. I just swim, bike, and run a lot. It's worked out pretty good for me. ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() Gaarryy - 2011-01-21 1:02 PM Scout7 - 2011-01-21 11:52 AM JohnnyKay - 2011-01-21 12:39 PM So is it periodized? I assume that it's specific to preparing for a race, and not general training, yes? I suppose I could go google it or something, couldn't I?Scout7 - 2011-01-21 12:36 PM So is Endurance Nation like FIRST for triathlons? I need a frame of reference. Sort of. Basically replacing volume with intensity for portions of the training program, especially on the bike. I"m not sure what FIRST is so I can't help ![]() but yes to other stuff you are asking. Not that i'm doing either program right now.. I'm just curious since the draw is that you can train effectively on less time, or less time than some traditional approaches might be a better way of putting it. FIRST is a running program. It boils down to 3 runs a week, a short easy run, a tempo or interval workout, and a long run. You fill the remaining days with cross training (so cycling, swimming, whatever). The argument is essentially quality over quantity. Which is generally what I think this whole debate is based one. CFE looks for "quality" in the sense of more intense workouts (albeit not sport-specific), with less time spent doing all the easy miles/yards. Generally I am not a big believer in the "less is more" approach. It works for some people, but I don't think the reason is that it's because they are training less. I think it's because they are adding in elements they were missing before, namely the harder stuff. I think people lose sight of the message when they see Run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard. When people talk about volume, it's not in place of harder stuff, it's that the hard stuff is in addition to the volume. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Scout7 - 2011-01-21 1:08 PM Gaarryy - 2011-01-21 1:02 PM FIRST is a running program. It boils down to 3 runs a week, a short easy run, a tempo or interval workout, and a long run. You fill the remaining days with crossfitting (so cycling, swimming, whatever). The argument is essentially quality over quantity. Which is generally what I think this whole debate is based one. CFE looks for "quality" in the sense of more intense workouts (albeit not sport-specific), with less time spent doing all the easy miles/yards. Generally I am not a big believer in the "less is more" approach. It works for some people, but I don't think the reason is that it's because they are training less. I think it's because they are adding in elements they were missing before, namely the harder stuff. I think people lose sight of the message when they see Run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard. When people talk about volume, it's not in place of harder stuff, it's that the hard stuff is in addition to the volume.Scout7 - 2011-01-21 11:52 AM JohnnyKay - 2011-01-21 12:39 PM So is it periodized? I assume that it's specific to preparing for a race, and not general training, yes? I suppose I could go google it or something, couldn't I?Scout7 - 2011-01-21 12:36 PM So is Endurance Nation like FIRST for triathlons? I need a frame of reference. Sort of. Basically replacing volume with intensity for portions of the training program, especially on the bike. I"m not sure what FIRST is so I can't help ![]() but yes to other stuff you are asking. Not that i'm doing either program right now.. I'm just curious since the draw is that you can train effectively on less time, or less time than some traditional approaches might be a better way of putting it. Fixed it for you ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mrbbrad - 2011-01-21 9:50 AM stumfossil - 2011-01-21 12:06 AM J
I've done three IMs in the last three years. LP08, LP09 and AZ10. For both LP IMs, I coached myself using the BeIronFit program and had good success. For Arizona this past year I knew I couldn't put in the time I had in the past due a new and way more demanding job and other life stresses. I worked with Max to prepare for Arizona using the CF/CFE. In addition to the CF workouts, I did plenty of s/b/r, but not as much as I've done in the past. It took some adjustment I will admit to go from long slow to short and intense. Most of my 2010 season was just working through this transition AND dealing with my busy work and personal life. But it got me to Arizona where I was able to achieve a 42 minute PR.
If I read this correctly, your 42 minute improvement is AZ compared to LP, is that correct? AZ is generally ranked below LP in "toughness" (average finish times, average splits, etc). Do you think you could put a percentage on how much of your improvement was due to course and race/weather conditions and how much was due to a new training protocol? I know that's a tough thing to quantify, but I've found the only thing that really works for me as an accurate gauge of improvement is to compare results from the same race year to year. Of course, I'd guess that 42 minutes is more than just a different course or better weather. ETA - you also posted a 37 minute improvement for LP in 09 over 08. Well done! The weather in AZ was not particularly ideal. It rained and hailed on the bike and there were significant wind gusts. My bike time was 6:17 versus 6:54 at LP. Riding a relatively flat course but dealing with high wind and bad weather render them fairly equivalent in my opinion (yes, we can start another debate around this AZ10 bike was pretty difficult. Yes its flat but that can be difficult. You are pedaling and down in the bars constantly which takes a toll on your body. Add in 30 mph gusts and hail and its a tough ride. The swim is one loop in very cold water. Harder to site on this swim course due to the weird curves of the "lake". The run is not that flat and lots of surface changes. I was able to do it with CE/CFE protocol. And I think I can leverage where that took me to get to a better place this season. I've done the training both ways. Either one can work. Working hard and being consistent is what gets you there. I enjoyed having more balance in my life with the CE/CFE protocol and I enjoyed achieving some new goals like stringing together 3-4 full pull ups in a row which is difficult for most females. Feel compelled to defend Max a bit here as I think some of you have put words in his mouth that aren't his.
|
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() stumfossil - 2011-01-21 1:36 PM I've done the training both ways. Either one can work. Working hard and being consistent is what gets you there. When you say "training both ways", what do you mean? Not being a jerk, I'm just not sure what you are using to differentiate. I definitely agree with the last part of your statement I quoted. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Scout7 - 2011-01-21 12:08 PM Gaarryy - 2011-01-21 1:02 PM FIRST is a running program. It boils down to 3 runs a week, a short easy run, a tempo or interval workout, and a long run. You fill the remaining days with cross training (so cycling, swimming, whatever). The argument is essentially quality over quantity. Which is generally what I think this whole debate is based one. CFE looks for "quality" in the sense of more intense workouts (albeit not sport-specific), with less time spent doing all the easy miles/yards. Generally I am not a big believer in the "less is more" approach. It works for some people, but I don't think the reason is that it's because they are training less. I think it's because they are adding in elements they were missing before, namely the harder stuff. I think people lose sight of the message when they see Run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard. When people talk about volume, it's not in place of harder stuff, it's that the hard stuff is in addition to the volume.Scout7 - 2011-01-21 11:52 AM JohnnyKay - 2011-01-21 12:39 PM So is it periodized? I assume that it's specific to preparing for a race, and not general training, yes? I suppose I could go google it or something, couldn't I?Scout7 - 2011-01-21 12:36 PM So is Endurance Nation like FIRST for triathlons? I need a frame of reference. Sort of. Basically replacing volume with intensity for portions of the training program, especially on the bike. I"m not sure what FIRST is so I can't help ![]() but yes to other stuff you are asking. Not that i'm doing either program right now.. I'm just curious since the draw is that you can train effectively on less time, or less time than some traditional approaches might be a better way of putting it.
ahh... Thanks for filling me in... I"m doing that 100 runs in 100 days challenge hoping not to get 100 but around 80 and think it's helped my running quite a bit running 5-6 days a week, so I'm glad I don't know about that |
|