Cross Fit Article in Triathlete (Page 8)

From the plans I've seen, experienced shared by athletes and what I personally know from the coaches and contributors to their ideas EN place emphasis on the time constricted athlete. because of that, to maximize training gains with a lesser time investment the focus on the intensity part of the equation (load = volume + intensity). That is not to say, the do HIIT; they do a lot of 'sweet spot' training or training around or just below threshold (usually as a function of VDOT for running and FTP for cycling).

The basic idea (which I agree btw) is, if you only have 10hrs for training, you'll spend it making the most of that time to maximize your gains within your own limitations. Ideally, athletes will spend a lot of time improving endurance via more volume at lower intensities and mixing load based on the training phase (periodization), unfortunately for many AGers this is simply not realistic with a job, family, etc.

Instead, they'll spend more time doing more intensity the bulk of the time and doing specific training (longer rides/runs/swims) as the main event approaches. There can be debate asking if this an optimal way for training? And the answer IMO is yes and no. Perhaps not if you are referring to producing the ultimate optimal performance. But on the other hand, it IS optimal training given their specific constraints. BTW, I see CFE in the same way which is why I don't criticize does who choose it.

It is the same case when athletes approach me for coaching, we explore what are the constraints, needs, limiters, etc for each athlete and based on that we develop a program. For some, a greater emphasis on intensity might be required (due to time constraints or other), while others might have the time to spend it focusing more on endurance training (frequency, duration, lower intensity).

Still, the person doing less volume/more intensity will limit adaptations gains important for endurance sports and the same applies for those that while doing a lot of volume, rarely mix their load. For the time constraint athlete, they might not perform at their very best when compared how much better they could perform *if* they had the time to train more. But, the will perform at their very best given how much training they currently can do. Sometimes you have to go with what you have and make the best out of it!

Edited by JorgeM 2011-01-21 12:50 PM

so what you are saying is never to sign up for an IM that you are doing since the weather is going to suck ??
 or that CFE causes race day crappy weather??   

Congrats on the pullups..  many people can't knock out 3-4 in a row regardless of gender

EN is periodized.  They offer ideas for training for both general prep and race specific.  The latter definitely includes high volume (their focus is long course, so "long, steady" is the race-specific stuff). 

Mostly, they differ from "typical" IM pans in that they emphasize more intensity in both biking and running in the "out-season" (and basically zero swimming for many athletes, but we'll leave that debate for another thread).  Their reasoning is partly dictated by their audience--time-constrained AG athletes with jobs and families--not that they think volume can't be effective (they talk a lot about ROI--return on investment).  Their training "thought process" probably doesn't differ much from yours--just leads them to a different conclusion.  I think it works very well on the bike for most athletes.  On the run, I think it only works for a subset (similar to FIRST).  There is NO cross training involved in their recommendations.  They are very much on the "specificity" side of the argument.


Edit:  Too slow.  Jorge gave a more complete description.  I think you get the idea, though.

Edited by JohnnyKay 2011-01-21 12:54 PM

(Apologies for not including the post I'm responding to, but it was long.)

Thank you, Jorge.

In other words, it's still an attempt at balance, but tilted more towards intensity due to constraints. Which I certainly understand.

You are right, of course, there is no one right method. It's all about the individual, what works for him/her in relation to the goals, the commitments, the constraints.

Reading this thread has caused me to look deep into myself and my training and has me really wondering:

When the hell are we going to get a popcorn emoticon on this site?

All comes down to goals vs. constraints. That balance is oh so important. Balancing goals against each other, balancing your available time between your commitments, and balancing your training itself.

exactly - but if you can use your scarse time more efficiently you get more from the same resource.  thus if CFs claim is legit and 8 hours of training the traditional way gets me X and CF gets me X+1, I have made a gain without sacrificing additional time.

Just want to make a point about the FIRST program. I actually purchased the book. This is not a beginner's program. During the first week in the marathon training program, the long run is 8 miles. The plan then has at least two 20 mile runs in there. Most beginner plans I've seen start you off the first week with some 3 mile runs and a "long" run of 4 miles, and top out at one long run of 20 miles. So it seems safe to say that there are no shortcuts for beginners - you've got to get the base work done. It also shows that "shortcut" is a relative term. I would not call interval work a shortcut. Yes, they take less time and seem less boring that endless hours of running, especially if the weather is crappy and all you have is a treadmill. But intervals, if done correctly, are hard work.

Oh, I understand completely. And I don't fault you in the least for asking the question. I think it's definitely appropriate.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's one right answer here. Obviously, training something is better than nothing. I personally feel that sport-specific training is definitely better than general fitness training in regards to specific performance.

I would definitely consider evaluating training, and looking for the points of leverage. Definitely look at where/when you can add in intensity to get the most bang for you buck. Again, from my personal point of view, I think you'd see better returns doing intervals and tempo runs and hard rides than doing CF/CFE, but that's my opinion on the matter.

Exactly. And I think that's one thing that has not been addressed in regards to those who implement CF/CFE. What was their fitness background before moving to CF/CFE? If you have an athlete who did a lot of easy volume, then suddenly added higher intensity work, I would definitely expect to see improvements across the board.

Which is part of the reason FIRST works better for experienced runners than beginners.

Let's look at it this way....

If one is training for a marathon, one should run, right?
Biking, particularly on days not spent running, is a good crosstraining method that can improve your fitness, therefore your running, as part of a marathon plan.

Now, one can run a fine, maybe even a great marathon while running with some biking thrown in.

One may even be able to run a fine marathon while doing more biking than running.

Now, barring injury, one would most likely run the best marathon possible by spending that biking time running instead.

Just the best correlation I can think of. I'm not saying biking is useless as part of marathon training. I'm actually saying it can be quite beneficial.
I'm saying it's not the way to reach one's full potential.

Running would be the best recipe to reach one's full running potential.

Biking is to running for a marthoner as CF is to S/B/R during triathlon training.

Edited by dangremond 2011-01-21 2:54 PM

Pam:

Maybe you can help us understand your progression in the sports (S,B,& R) and how CFE helped, etc. Iif we understood your total volumes in 2008, 2009 and 2010 it would help.  Also, how did your typical training week for Ironman change from 2009 to 2010.  What I would like to isolate is how much of a base did you have before embarking on your CFE journey and how much your training regimen really changed?  I thought I saw in your race log that your swim was slower in Arizona and your run was even (willing to admit/accept I may be wrong).

Unrelated to Pam above, I tried the FIRST plan for a HM a couple years ago.  I was not realistic about my base and was not able to handle the intensity of my workouts with regard to completing many of the week's full training plans...thus many of the cross training days became rest days.  Additionally, my longest run for the HM was 15 miles and total mileage approached the 30 mile per week range.  So, FIRST has long runs but focuses on cross training in an effort to allow recovery to handle the intensity of the workouts.  I wonder if CFE is similar to FIRST in that it requires a strong base to complete and to benefit.  In the same fashion I wonder aloud how sustainable the gains are.  I have picked up McCormacs tri training book for time starved folks - it is geared at short course (sprint and olympic) and for people with some sort of a base.

Edited by dangremond 2011-01-21 2:53 PM

I think your post brings sort of full-circle this conversation. In one hand the time constraint athlete has to make choices as to how to better utilized that little time to maximize their gains. On the other hand they have to understand there is a trade off because in terms of endurance training there aren't any short cuts. Hence, yes, while focusing on making the most out of your training you need to make adjustments and probably favoring intensity over volume is a wise approach.

You won't achieve the best level of fitness you could accomplish with a mixed training load maximizing different training adaptations, but you will accomplish a solid fitness level for the time you can afford to train.

Now, besides the posts criticizing the attitude of some people doing CF/CFE which IMO is and irrelevant after all annoying people are everywhere (including tris), many of us have no problem with people who have to make those choices. The discussion at least on my end was focused on CFE claims which IMO are misleading in order to promote their services.

The fact is that most (if not all) of their claims are incorrect and what's to me troubling is that either their do it purposely to mislead or worst, they simply don't understand what they are promoting which seems irresponsible. They take studies like the Tabata one and take the results out of context. i.e. Bioteknik posted a link to an excellent analysis about it which clearly demonstrates this. They do the same with others.

When the CFE founder claims 'LSD' more appropriately referred as endurance training, does not help or produce as good (or even better training adaptations) is simply not true. The reality is that endurance training from long/low intensity sessions to around maximum lactate steady produce very important physiological adaptations that simply doesn't occur when focusing in interval training whether VO2max or HIIT (anaerobic) exclusively.

What's most confusing, is that endurance adaptations actually enhance HIIT adaptations and HIIT can produce a few extra adaptations for the endurance training. Still, fitness gains through HIIT happen very fast and after the adaptation period those plateau.

That's is why most successful endurance training programs (coaches/athletes) like swimming, biking, running, x-country skiing, etc. spend a lot of time doing low intensity/high volume training, BUT ALSO, they work at different durations/intensities to maximize other adaptations that occur at tempo (below MLSS), at MLSS, at VO2max and even towards Anaerobic efforts.

The more I learn about CFE, the more I realized the really do very little HIIT and spend more time maximizing VO2max and even MLSS adaptations. VO2 max training also has a limited benefit after adaptation and increasing VO2 max does very little for improving one's aerobic capacity (but that's another topic). MLSS training does provide a great 'bang for your buck'. This makes me wonder why the CFE crazy claims about HIIT? Do they really seek to cause controversy to place attention on their services or does the founder really has such limited physiological understanding?

The are pros and cons for both approaches, and to be fair I also debate when someone places exclusive emphasis on endurance training or advice that to the limited time athlete. The reality is that you need both if your goal is to maximize your endurance performance. What sort of balance you'll need will depend on your specific needs (genes, fitness level, sport background, etc). The longer you go, the more volume becomes important and the shorter you go the more intensity importance increases.

Still, keep in mind, at the elite level, even athletes training for short aerobic events (3-5 min), spend a big portion on endurance training, there is no way around it for optimal performance. Realistically, we can't train like elites and we have to make choices to better use our limited time. But be aware, the alternatives to maximize your gains are NOT better or more efficient than the proven methods. Simply, for your needs, those might be adequate or 'good enough'.

+1

<< Fred Doucette: "I know nothing about crossfit and actually plan on learning nothing about it." >>

Contempt prior to investigation?

I'm not sure I would apply that statement to anything.....  I'm curious about everything.

Edited by SkyShot 2011-01-22 10:35 AM

Fred's okay in my book. As he mentioned in his posts, Fred likes the long training. For him, the journey is its own reward. I think that's a Chinese saying. I, too, enjoy the journey, but I like to take different paths.

And in case it's not obvious, I'm looking to get back into doing triathlons this season.

I do fing it interesting that a group advocating a "new" training methodology (that for long course racing would be a radical approach) isn't willing to or don't have the empirical evidence / data to support their beliefs and claims.  One would think that they could post training volumes pre and post beginning CFE as well as results for same races under both training methodologies.  That might persuade some folks or help answer some questions.

This user's post has been ignored.

Edited by Fred Doucette 2011-01-22 4:20 PM

The above data is meaningless to the discussion.

Agreed; I trained less in 2010 than in several years and yet I was close to my fastest time in one race, a few minutes slower in another and actually had a new best time at my final race of the season.

Without any context, one might be able to conclude that by training less I was able to race faster.

Shane