Yeah for the half and full crossfitalons i use it all the time. When i'm doing tri's i prefer to train in the sports that are actually part of the race.

Ugh. This'll be ugly...

---

---

Punching cockroaches from day 1.

---

http://www.tri-junkie.com/

No fight outta me I'm afraid. I like CrossFit. Although I am a slow slug right now.... Having more to do with general lassitude than any one training doctrine or another.

I like CrossFit. Very "manly". ;)

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I'd suspect that doing the intervals they suggest would improve aerobic capacity. I doubt that someone who does CFE and uses that as their primary tri training is going to be tearing it up on anything but a local level. Even then it's going to be a local area with a very small pond.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

"Your toughest day of racing isn�t as bad as your hardest CFE workout."

Not so much.

Theres nothing wrong with crossfit as an activity or a way to workout. Its really cool in a lot of ways.

But it is not he key to endurance training as triathletes or distance runners or cyclists define endurance.

It might help you stay in better *overall* physical condition (still able to open a can of peanut butter while running 5 minute miles, for example) but I wouldn't expect it to work miracles unless you have some nagging injuries that it happens to solve.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Hey I like my local small pond thank you... assuming the fast people from my local small pond don't show up....

I like it crossfitalons. I agree but I also think CFE agrees as they have you do some s/b/r. I just cannot for the life of me find out how much, how frequently, etc. to evaluate it.

In the Triathlete article, it talks about Guy finishing a 5x 1 mile interval session, which is certainly something I did in my traditional IM training, but what I cannot tell is whether that was a long run, speedwork or easy day (which I would doubt there is such a thing in CF).

I guess at the core what I am wondering is how different is CFE v. traditional training (and not traditional alleged ST training (10k swim, 300 mi bike, 60 mile run) either)?

"Some" should be replaced with all or at least the vast majority.

Thanks Tom, definitely not trying to get a fight (and especially not with you) BUT I am trying to get answers on CFE. It is like black ops...everyone seems to know they exist but nobody knows exactly what they do. CFE is regularly talked about, debated, etc., but nobody seems to know what the program really consists of.

I know there is the 13 Weeks To A 13-Hour Ironman book and am wondering if, in the end, CFE is really similar.

I really like CF (and the theory of CFE too) but I am really struggling seeing it apply to longer ocurse tris.

Also, for the record, I am not trying to win anything, simply go a little faster (or not slow down) as I advance in age groups.

Lets say you want to be a better baseball player, do you go pick up a basketball and start shooting hoops or do you go pick up a baseball bat and start hitting balls? Its the same idea. If you want to get all pretty and crossfitted out go for it, but if you want to be the best triathlete you need to do triathlon training.

ok, I think we are talking past each other. I 100% agree BUT I also think CFE 100% agrees. The difference (as best as I can discern) is that CFE says you do higher intensity/lower volume as your training + include CF (which I 100% agree is definitely not s/b). CFE absolutely includes swimming, biking and running.

I just cannot find actual training logs or data as to the actual volume included in the program.

Try following the CFE WOD's here: http://www.crossfitendurance.com/

I lift things up and put them down.

I lift things up and put them down.

I lift things up and put them down.

But what do you do for a job?

I lift things up and put them down.

Thanks, I have been all over that site. But I still do not have an answer for- assuming I am in the "U" category (which is not very clear), what does my half IM plan look like?

For example Thursday's wod was

Thursday, 1.13.11: Time Trial D 13
CFE Strength and Conditioning Rest Day
Choose ONE sport and do the following for your distance:
Swim: SC: 800m TT, LC: 1000m TT, U: 1200m TT
Bike: SC: 12 mile TT, LC: 20 mile TT, U: 30 mile TT
Run: SC: 2 mile TT, LC: 10k TT, U: 13.1M TT
C2: SC: 2k TT, LC: 3k TT, U: 6k TT

So, a 30 mile TT is definitely intense. But is that the longest ride for my half IM/full IM training? and I know I get to choose but is there a Plan anywhere that suggests how to order my workouts or is it much like regular CF, a crapshoot?

I'd like to see the secret plans, too. I got invited to a certification class, but I'm not paying $595 for that.

The idea that doing CF will redefine your sense of "hard" is a good thing, so if you have been training mostly LSD and then you start doing CF, sure you will see improvements because now you realize what a wimp you were. But many ST'ers (self included) already know what "hard" is in terms of s/b/r, and we each have to choose how much intensity we can train, and the less CF you do, well, the more time you have to do quality s/b/r.

The other variable that can't be measured is CHANGE. Some people train aimlessly, and when they subject themselves to ANY consistent program they will see improvement.

So until CFE starts turning out race winners at all tri distances from diverse backgrounds, I remain skeptical.

It sounds like we are in the same boat- skeptical but open. Anerobic and/or Zone 4/5 training is nothing new. It would be funny if you went to the certification and they gave you Gail B.'s plan 13 weeks to a 13 hr IM (or more likely copied it and put some skulls and swords across it and called it the hardcore CF IM Plan).

CF is definitely good at marketing...I am just trying to see what, if anything, is beneath the bold claims. I really would have dismissed already, but CF itself has actually lived up to most of its claims (except making me prettier).

I'm giving it a try next month. It looks like fun. When bike racing season starts up for real I doubt I'll have time for it.

I have a fairly hard-line view on Crossfit as I explained in my dissertation HERE. The reason being, I get no fewer than 2-3 e-mails every week, asking me whether or not an athlete should replace some of their SBorR workouts w/ CFE.

Is it a fantastic workout? Yes.
Is it an appropriate replacement for an athlete looking to maximize his/her potential in endurance sports? Hardly.

With regards the article in Triathlete, I took particular interest as one of the subjects of it was a local triathlete/coach, whom I consider a friend (although we disagree on certain training principles, CFE being one of them). Something I found 'interesting':

Keep in mind, this athlete has an 11:33 IM LP personal best:

....At Ironman Lake Placid, she finished in less than 12 hours and PR'd her run.....

Without being an a##hole, anyone care to translate that without the CFE spin?

From the same perspective as the Triathlete article, lets create a scenario, using a similar angle:

Joe has a NYC Marathon PR of 2:55. This year, under the guidance of CrossFit coaches, he cuts his training volume in 1/2 and starts using CrossFit Endurance. He laughs at his friends who spend hours every weekend logging 20 mile runs as he's replaced these workouts, with high intensity training.
Fast forward to that Fall's NYC Marathon and Joe finishes in a remarkable 3:10, running the final 10K faster than he ever has!!!

:)
---

---

Brian Shea
http://www.PersonalBestNutrition.com
Open-Water/Masters Swimming at the Jersey Shore:
Monmouth County NJ Ocean Swim/Masters Workouts

I was doing crossfit for the past year, just to do something different. As I have some races planned for next year I started adding back in s/b/r. My coach is CFE certified and took such a "my way or nothing" attitude, that I stopped going to that box.

From my start with CF, all I kept hearing about was how they redefine Fitness as something that is measurable and repeatable. That is not possible with CFE (or they have not provided any scientific data to back it up) I am all about what really works, but until you have a CFE guy that actually competes, not completes, it will have a hard time being considered a replacement.


So, I will still use CF for core work, and I may use CFE for 1/2s and shorter, but for Fulls, I will return to my conventional training that works.

If you want to take up a collection so that I can pay for the certification class, I'll go ;)

Here's another thing about CF in general that I take offense to: Take any slob. Motivate them to clean up their diet (paleo style). Now add regular exercise. ANY exercise that features a modicum of strength work. Voila! Prettier physique. This is not rocket science. The dietary changes are the foundation of any decent athletic performance. That is not specific to CF.

Here's another gem of a quote: "Repetition is the enemy and results in a decreased ability to build fitness." Huh. Funny thing about all that swimming I've been doing...seems to have made me a better, fitter swimmer. I must be an idiot. Same with biking--lots of intervals, lots and lots of time riding long and fast. I have Gail B's book of tri plans, and news flash--there ain't a whole lot of repetition in there.

The word spin is priceless. I mean, really, is any of us repeating exactly the same thing over and over? Hell no. But if you dress it up as IF a person who does not do CF is being repetitive, then non-CF becomes the enemy.

Ugh.

But if I went to the certification class and they gave me shirts and certificates with skulls and swords, I'd be all over that!

Yawn.

If you want to get fast at triathlon then do triathlon. If you want to be a "fit" gym rat then do all the CF you want. On second thought I hope all my competitors do CF this winter. I mean shit, How many different things do you people want to do? Are all of you really that A.D.D? 3 sports isn't enough to try to get good at, at one time?

Why are good single sport athletes good at their one sport? Because they do it a lot. Why do so many triathletes suck at triathlon? Maybe because they are are too busy trying to be good at CF? Good triathletes are good at triathlon because they S,B,R hard, a lot, and cut out much of the other BS.

I'm not affiliated with CF or CFE but have been watching and learning about them for a while. They've renewed my interest in training for IM distance since I just don't have more than 12 hours a week to train, no matter what the training style. Here's the brief, broad answer to your programming question for endurance events as I've learned about it:

CFE is based on the premise that LSD training traditionally accomplishes two things at once: fitness and skillwork/race training. In other words, to get in general aerobic (or even anaerobic) shape, you swim, bike, run -- a lot. At the same time, you are perfecting your skills/race training in these sports. It's all combined and typically requires high volume to excel.

CFE separates the fitness aspect from the skill/race training and suggests that intensity can replace volume/time in both aspects. They say do CF WODS to develop your fitness. Then they layer the sport-specific training on top of regular CF workouts in the same day. This added layer is the skill/race training. So everyday (or most days of the week) a CFE program involves a traditional CF workout. For each sport, they recommend additional 1-3 sport-specific workouts a week. These sport-specific workouts will usually involve 1-2 high-intensity interval days, and 1 time trial day (though this mix varies by programmer/coach). The WODS and sport-specific workouts are separated by hours of rest (i.e. life).

Examples: An ultra runner (1 sport athlete) doing CFE will do CF WODs 5-6 days a week and an additional 3 sessions of running tt or intervals. A triathlete (3 sports) will do CF WOD 5-6 days a week and an additional 6 or more sessions of tt or intervals (average 2 per sport). For many triathletes, this will require 2 workouts on most days with at least 3 hours or more of rest between them. They recommend that the first session of the day be focused on whichever aspect is most important at the time (CF WOD if you are generally fitness focused, skill TT or interval if you are race/skill focused). The weekly order of S, B, or R (what day to do which) is more a function of scheduling and ability to focus (e.g. better not to do all your weekly TTs on 3 consecutive days since they require such high level of mental and physical performance) rather than a single pattern that must be kept each week.

Of course, individuals who work with CFE coaches may get a more tailored version, but this is how I understand it is generally done.

thanks man, that is some great insight. Any idea how long one would s/b/r in CFE (say for a full) and would that be a TT (I am guessing so). And does one ever do a brick or is that handled by the CF/CFE combo(which I might actuall buy). Looking at it, do you think total time is more? CF in the morning (1hr) and CFE at night (another hour?)

The CFE website posts 2 workouts daily: the strength/conditioning WOD (this is the type of workout most CFers are familiar with) and the skill-specific (s,b,r). When choosing distance or time for your daily s,b,r, you select based on duration of your inteded competition/event. They code the workouts as follows:
SC = Short Course (<2hrs)
LC = Long Course (2-3hrs)
U = Ultra Distance (>3hrs)

So for HIM and IM most (all?) would follow the U selection on any given day.

Many folks who follow the CFE site on their own (without a coach doing individual programming) will follow the workouts from the previous week (and always stay a week behind) so they can see the whole week of workouts in advance and plan/schedule them according to your life/priorities. If you follow the concurrent daily programming, you have less opportunity to plan and risk that life may get in the way. Since each week has a general balance of tempo intervals (85 to 95% effort) and time trials (100% effort) you can rely on the site program to determine your balance, or you can tweak the balance/schedule a bit to suit your needs (this is what a coach would do for you).

AFAIK, the CFE site does not program bricks, nor do most CFE coaches program them very heavily (esp., say, as compared to traditional trining where bricks may be a weeky deal). To some extent you are right, the CF WOD helps in this regard since the nature of the work is so varied. That said, I imagine any good coach (CFE or non) would suggest you practice even a few limited bricks prior to race day, just as they would recommend same with nutrition/hydration. Race day is hardly ever the time for brand new stuff (but it sounds like you know this already).

As far as daily time, I think your estimate is about right, thoughh actual working time may be slightly less than 2 hrs. I don't know of many CF WODs that go longer than 40 min nor do regularly see s/b/r tempo or tt workouts beyond 40 min.

Thanks for the info. Obviously you have some eperience with this. Staying a week behind is a great tip. I have been going through the archive to try to get some concept of volume. I would say for a half the U volume would seem fine (especially given the intensity), still doubtful on the full. And in reality, I would still do som 60+ mile rides just to get good saddle time in. I am thinking I may give it a go this season. Still concerned about recovery/injury from the constant intensity. Of course, ST would just say HTFU.

My other big concern is the promoting/pushing this on a rookie long course triathletes. I have a friend who has been sold CFE for his first IM. I (and others)) have tried to direct him elsewhere, but have failed miserably. I simply cannot imagine facing a 2.4 mile swim for the first time, 112 mile bike for the first time and 26.2 mile run for the first time all on race day. This is particularly true with the mental, nutrition and pacing aspects all unknown and untraine; it just seems dangerous.

I joined a Cross Fit gym 11/09 and went 3-4x a week through April. It didn't help my tri abilities at all. Others at the gym would run less than before they joined CF and report their 5K times went down me the opposite happened. Plus I would get sore and at times slight injury issues that interfered with my training. Since I would have a training plan working with a coach for tris and CF they would post the work the night before hard to coordinate things well. Example being really sore in your upper body from lifting didn't help with the swim the next day. The coaches wanted me to do the Cross Fit Endurance program and tried to push me to do it over and over but I didn't see it wise to do hard intense training and mostly short workouts all the time.

I spoke to a owner of another Cross Fit gym who used to race tris including IM. He suggested Cross Fit Endurance is good program for those racing Sprints and Olys but for those doing HIM and IMs it was a bit of a conflict as you need to build up resiliency to be able to s/b/r for so long.

My husband and daughter joined and still go to Cross Fit. They love it. They both do tris but for them Cross Fit is more their primary athletic pursuit. Cross Fit is a lot of fun but for me it really doesn't fit in well with my goals to do long course tris.

I don't understand these workouts. A 1200m TT swim is lot easier than a 10k or 30mi TT on the bike. Just in term of length of time for a descent age grouper... Swimming, 18-25 minutes, running85-100 minutes, biking 65-80 minutes.

How are those workout in any way comparable??? No matter how fast you swim in, a 1200 is a short swimming workout

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Don't shoot them down now they are on a roll how Crossfit is a good plan...

I think that is a good question. Since there does not sem to be a plan per se, I am thinking if in you rotation you chose bike or run last time, you choose swim on the third.

Sounds like others here went through similar analysis (thanks for sharing here and risking the ST wrath). I too like the overall fitness CF has started to bring. I think there is a way to meld CF/CFE/and longer rides all together, it will just take more work than I was originally hoping. Unlike the CF folks might suggest, I do not think I will turn to dust or grow a third head by combining all 3 in my training.

Thanks for all the insight today. The Triathlete article still seems totally disingenuous. Glad I got my Lava today to provide some legit tri reading.

The volume concern for IMs and other ultra events is mostly a mental issue, since its been proven by other athletes that IMs and ultras can be done well this way. But as an athlete and a coach, I def. understand the psych hurdle. There's no reason one can't do CFE style training and test a few (or more) long days for learning, practice, and/or just confidence. I'm pretty sure lots of folks do this. CFEs point, I think, is just that, physically, the long stuff isn't necessary if you do the short stuff right. Keep in mind doing it right not only includes incredibly high intensity on a daily basis, but also good nutrition, good rest, and all the healthy recovery things one needs to focus on to perform at high intensity daily. Also learning about and testing pacing, hydration, etc. As you recognize, this stuff is not trivial. First timers in lots of activites suffer from too much too soon in the training arena (and too little too late in prep/rest/recovery/strategy/hydration/nutrition), but this is hardly unique to CFE and certainly not something I've heard them encourage.

For me it comes down to different strokes for different folks. If you think it can work for you, or if you think it can't, you're probably right. My first IM will be done using CFE cause I like the concept, I've seen it produce results, and I just don't have the time for an alternative. But i have a decent endurance training background so that will help.

For your friend who's a rookie, I'd highly recommend he either find an experienced coach or seek out folks with experience who have made all the first time CFE mistakes so he can learn from them without repeating them. There are many CFE first time IMers out there with great experiences. Lots with lessons to share too. If you or he want to connect with experienced (recreational or highly competitive) CFE IMers, hit me up via pm and I'll try to point you in the right direction.

I would agree with Brian.......

Great workout.......yes
Lots of fun and practical for everday life......yes
Motivating and something to do other than S/B/R.....yes
Ideal for making you the best possible triathlete you can be.........not so much

I think, like many of the options out there (TRX/Pilates/high volume/low volume/weight lifting) etc that whether or not they are ideal totally depends on your goals. If your goal is to just have fun and stay in shape and do some triathlons, then any and all of that stuff is great.

But if you want to be as fast as possible at all costs in the sport of triathlon, you need to train pretty tri specific! Let me know if you ever see any Kona winners or marathon winners that regularly do CF ;-)


Last marathon I did, all the CF'ers (they had on CF shirts) were walking most of the race :-/

Funny how this guy is sponsored by CF and CFE.

Why publish such a fluff piece? Should the magazine not at least scratch beneath the surface and check his claims?

Why not post an article about how going to church makes you faster?

yep, the article is disturbing for sure. I am not expecting the NY Times from Triathlete but just a little fact checking would have ben nice. This one of my overall complaints with CF/CFE, you dig just a little and suddenly things change. The simple plain truth is enough for me. This guy was an average triathlete, got injured, used CF as rehab, got better very quickly, now uses some undisclosed training regime that includes, CF and CFE to compete in duathlons. Maybe it's not sexy, but it seems closer to the truth.

I think training other disciplines in the off season makes sense. I was just questioning how you pcik one of 3 activities, that range dramatically in intensity.

A 1/2 marathon time trial... meaning training race. Crap, personally, I'd need a 2-3 day recovery from that. Cycling, 1 day recovery. Swimming... recovery is a non-issue there for the most part when you're above 500m.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

I never jump in threads about CF, its not good for business, but since this one has stayed civil up to this point, I will provide some insight into "the magical" program.

I started CF 3 years ago, since I'm in the military and the guys at work were doing it. This basically brought me off the couch after about 5 years. I grew up a swimmer, not quite good enough to compete at my D1 school. After I didn't make the team, I played club water polo, and ran some, then after college nothing. I got in great shape in the course of the first year, and really enjoyed the workouts and the fitness level that I achieved. One year in, I shifted my diet to a modified Paleo-esque diet, and really accelerated my performance, shed about 10 lbs and got really fit. I ran my first half marathon of off very little training (about a month of unstructured runs 2x a week.) I ran that 1/2 in 1:42. That was August 09. My brother is a very competitive triathlete (elite) so I decided to buy a bike and throw my hat in the ring.

Started biking in Nov 09, and started training for triathlon, using a CFE based approach. 4-5 CF workouts a week, 6 sport specific workouts a week. My first race was another 13.1 (carlsbad) which I completed in 1:28:45. I did my first sprint (Tritonman) in Feb, and posted a 1:03, got 3rd in my AG. This was a smaller local race, but a good start. I raced a couple more local sprints with bigger fields, and always made top 10 AG, usually about in the 5th-7th range. I did Superfrog Half-Iron in April. I did a 5:07, which got me 5th (25-29.) I signed up for Vineman, and started training for my first full Ironman. I went to a CFE trainers course in March, and used a CFE based approach to train. I followed the Strength and Conditioning workouts from that site, as well as the CFE programming. Exceptions - I ride with a local cycling group on Saturdays (50-65 miles avg.) Other than that, I followed the program pretty closely. My longest run was a 10k leading up to the race, and I had never ridden 100 miles. However, I developed an achilles injury that surfaced during my taper, and I decided to race anyway. I did the swim in 1:03, bike in 6:15, and ended up walking the whole 2nd half of the marathon. I know many people will view this as a failing of my training, but I would like to stress it was based on the injury and not fatigue or cramping. I actually felt like I nailed the nutrition and was very frustrated because I felt like I could have easily broken 11 based on fitness, but my body only held up for an 11:55. I'm not very proud of the overall time, but it was a great learning experience. All of these races were completed on a road bike with clip ons and aluminum wheels.

Let my achilles heal for 2 months, doing only swimming and strength work. I started training again in late Sept, and got enough fitness in to win my AG (now 30-34) at the Fearless tri, admittedly a less competitive and smaller field than some of the other local races. So, at this point, based on CFE training, I would call myself somewhat competitive at the local level (like drake said earlier.) I bought a new tri bike, and some zipps, as well as a power meter. I just finished Coggan's book, and am giving the 16-week FTP plan a shot. Over the off season (Oct-Nov-Dec) I rode very consistently 3x a week (usually with CFE intervals sandwiched in) as well as a lot of climbing, probably more than they prescribe.

I am faster than ever, looking to break 1:20 at Carlsbad next weekend, off of 2x runs a week and never more than 15 miles. Last weekend in a warmup 15k, I split 17:40 for 3, 36:45 for 6, and finished 9.3 in 57:38, for an overall pace of 6:11. My current swim is at 22:45 for a 1500 SCM tt. My current FTP is 254, with another test coming up soon.

Since the beginning of Dec, I have cut my CF workouts to 2x a week, and been riding more in an effort to lose weight. I was about 165 with 9% bodyfat, now down to about 160.

Things I would like to point out to wrap up this mega-post. My results are not typical. Im not suggesting that my program was better than anyone else's. I think there are many ways to success. I started with CFE because I was into Crossfit already, so it made sense to me. I don't drink the Kool-aid and espouse the religious fervor that many of my CF friends do. It has worked for me this last year. Maybe Paulo or Jordan would say I saw the results I did in spite of my training. That could certainly be true.

My thoughts on CFE - many people look at it as a shortcut. I have as much time to train as I want, so the reason I stick to the intensity based approach is that it has worked for me. I have gotten much faster running 2x a week, with one track session and one 4-13 mile run. Could I be faster on BarryP's program? Hell, I don't know. It ain't broke right now, so I'm not fixing it, especially since my achilles are healthy and I'm still dropping my times.

In starting the power based program, I find it to be very similar to CFE, minus the Active Recovery rides. CFE usually calls for 2x intervals (1 shorter, 1 longer -comparable to NP and AE workouts, and a tempo or TT (threshold) ride. I also have a friend who uses endurance nation, and my training weeks look pretty similar. I am all about testing other programs. I'm open to what others say and write here. I definitely wonder how I will do on more volume, etc.

My goals for the season: sub 4:30 at Oceanside, 10:15 at St. George. Ill let you know how that goes. I do plan on doing a 12 week build cycle to increase run and cycle volume. Will it look exactly like CFE? Probably not, but I'm not selling anything either.

I don't think going long is strictly a mental thing.

It's true that you don't have to go long to do ultra-distance events and you can even perform well (depending on how you define "well") without it. I have always believed (without any hard proof) that you can probably get to 95% of your theoretical best IM performance without ever training more than 1 hour at a time. But, if you want that last 5% or (whatever it actually is), then you need to invest in the longer training.

That said, I believe that if you dropped the CF from CFE, e.g. just do the s/b/r portions of the CFE program, that you could probably do equally as well with even less training time. Of course, there's more to fitness than s/b/r and I think for the vast majority of triathletes, they should go for well-rounded fitness. Only 1% can be in the top 1%, for 90+% of the triathlete population, would you rather devote tons of additional training time so that you can be 5% faster and still not in the top 1% or would it better to spend considerably less time and to have more all-around fitness? There's no right answer to this question, it's a matter of personal choice.

Then what you believe is dead wrong.

I'll throw my 2c in. I liked the CF I;ve seen for "fitness" and have seen it do wonders for the out of shape folks out there. Their hard workouts can get you mentally ready to suffer on race day. Their WOD's are all hard , TTs, all out mile repeats etc. BUT, how can the regular athlete get ready to compete for 4.5-5.5 hours in a HIM event when they never go more than 1 hour in a workout? Just the mental aspect of racing for 4.5 times more time takes practice. Also, CFE is not really that much better on time than traditional training. If I have to find time for 2 workouts separated by 3 hours every day it sucks up much more time than just getting up, banging out the 1-2 hours of planned training and then getting back to my usual life.

Lastly, Triathlete is hardly journalism, but I expected some fact checking and more detail in the article, like how many hours do their "sample" athletes train? mileage? yards? and of course, before vs after results. I'm progressing nicely on hard, steady training with strength work in for fun, so I'm not planning to join the local box and drive my wife insane with "one more thing " to do.

---

Brian
“Eat and Drink, spin the legs and you’re going to effin push (today).” A Howe

Before I ever raced triathlon I had been doing crossfit type training for years and once I started triathlon I never seemed to have problem with injuries. This past year is actually the first year out of 5seasons I suffered a serious injury. While in the Navy I used to do alot of cross fit type workouts out to sea during my preperation and base phases of training, I usually quit during the build phase. I think Its been a great help to me in triathlon. 2009 two months after getting back from deployment I placed 22nd and 1st in my age group at Augusta 70.3 on a base phase loaded with crossfit, trainer rides, jump roping, and treadmill runs. I think triathletes can really benefit from the higher repition stuff but stay away from low rep heavy lifts. I think doing the high rep lifting focusing on form helps develop symmetry in your body and reduce asymmetries from training.

some of my old workouts most geared towards upper body as a swimming replacement at sea

buds warning order(an old navy classic here)- 20 pushups, 6pullups, 20 sit ups, 6dips X 10 to 20 depending on your fitness
scorecher 500 - 500 reps 45 pound bench bar for time
the devastator - max reps for 135bench, 185deadlift, 135hang clean, 135hang cleans
10min leaning rest- hold push up positon for 10mins
20pushups to 1:00 min hard jump rope X 20
jumping rope with wrist weights
doing medicine ball workouts that lasted 30-45 min with a grab bag of exersises
also lots of yoga, bear crawling, massive sets of body weight lunges and body weight squats, and plancking exersies routines that lasted 10-15min

Paradoxically my injury this year I think was related to a crossfit workout I did with an old friend of mine from the Navy whom is in the Teams. I asked him to take me to the "Pain Cave" and thats exactly what I got(be warned if you ask an operator to take you to the pain cave because they have been deeper into then you can imagine aka Hell Week), I took 2weeks easy after the workout and think I should have taken 4. I would'nt take it back though and don't regret it, it was the thoughest workout of my life and really taught me what I'm capable of.

note: crossfit type training has been around alot longer than it was called crossfit, "crossfit" is just the organization of a certain workout mentality
before crossfit it was just called supersetting with no rest

It may not be 95% but, I think it's closer to 95% than 80%. Also, I meant 1 hour in a single sport at a time. Brick workouts would be over an hour.

I don't think CFE would get you there. I don't think a total of 6 s/b/r workouts a week is enough.

thanks for responding (and to everyone else for letting this not devolve into either CF is great or CF sucks or my seat is too high (which it most assuredly is).

Mind me asking what your longest swim, bike (was it 65?) and run (sounded like 10k) were during your training? It is funny you mention the time. I was looking at this and thinking (aside from the gross savings on my long weekend stuff), the week time committment seemed to be more.

I'd am still too skeptical for the full, but have some calls in locally to talk to a CFE guy about plans for a half. Ultimately, I may just end up doing my regular tri training and mixing in 2-3 CF workouts because I do seem them adding benefit.

My longest swim is probably irrelevant to anyone else, because I spent the first 20 yrs of my life swimming 10,000 yds a day. I never swim more than about 2500, but thats because I try to do the bare minimum to compete. I can easily do the IM swim in around an hour with minimal training. My 1:03 at Vineman was due to being nervous to go harder than fitness.

My longest ride was 70ish, but that was on a road bike with my group. My longest TT by myself in the aero position was 36 miles.

My longest run was 10k.

I think its important to note two things:

1.) I think this was perfectly adequate training to complete my ironman. I will do more volume for St George, but that is based on my goals and what I feel I need to improve on. At no point during Vineman did I think, man, if I only wouldve done a 100 mi ride and a 20 mile run! I felt very well prepared.

2.) The training is very intense and you have to watch overtraining. You are putting it all on the line every single workout, and can get fatigued quickly. Watch it, and take a rest day if needed.

If you have questions about how to set up a program, I would be glad to help. Im glad you are skeptical, if you bought things hook line and sinker I would be worried. The program has goods and others, just like any other program. I am willing to discuss both, on this forum and offline if you want. As far as the time commitment, I found most weeks between 10-14 hours. I won't say for sure, since ST is full of people who train 20-25 regularly (just ask them), but I think it is not much less than the average triathlete. I certainly never felt I wasn't working hard enough, with 2 a days every day except the weekends.

Here is some more info on the CFE programming.

http://www.crossfitaltitude.com/...cbrian_endurance.pdf

---

Ryan Hunt
Owner - CrossFit Monrovia
http://www.crossfitmonrovia.com

1'st - thanks for serving and protecting us. I'm very serious on this one.

2'nd - Could your ability to complete the Ironman have been from your military experience and not CF? - When I watch the Kona re-runs - My favorite part is the Seals jumping out of the plane before the race starts. I'd wager that most military men could easily do the Ironman just based on their profession.

Ryan, thanks for the info. The programmatic portion is interesting with the interval/stamina division. As a rough guide, what would be the longest stamina s/b/r be if training for a half or full im. Would you program similar to smugfit (above) or would the stamina workouts include longer sessions?

I can really see using this for short course and still think I could pull of better overall fitness and my same (if not a little faster) half using this protocol, but I am very concerned about recovery/injury/burnout using CFE. What have your seen with longer course athletes?

Thanks for the insight.

When I signed up, there was no doubt in my mind that I would complete. I think based on my background, as you suggest, quitting is not really an option. In fact, this was probably to my detriment, as I pushed through a serious injury that should have ended my day. Instead I chose to walk the last 15 miles with an ankle the size of a softball. Not my best decision, but due to hubris there was no way I was coming home with a DNF.

Crossfit gave me a great platform to start my sport specific training. It molded me from soft to rock hard in a little over a year, and helped me to do all the things crossfit touts as so great: run faster, jump higher, lift heavier, less body fat, tough attitude etc. Did I complete the race because I can squat? Nope, but it gave me a very fit starting point for my training.

I swam, biked and ran a lot. I wrote most of my workouts based on the CFE model, but generally I was looking at 4 hours of crossfit and 8-12 of sport specific training a week. Sure, this may be on the low side of an Ironman program, but I think any reasonably fit individual would be fine with that amount of time.

Again, and I have researched this heavily, I really think there are more similarities than people think to other training programs. This is partly because CFE choses to market a certain way, as a rogue counter-culture. That is their prerogative and it has been effective for them. And it tends to polarize people.

They believe that you can push your overall performance curve to the right by training heavily in the anaerobic and lactate zones. I think anyone on this forum would probably agree that this is A way to train. They cut out active recovery and long slow distance. A lot of other plans are doing much of the same. Like I mentioned, I am now using a power based plan straight from the book, and it sure doesn't feel much different. The only real difference I see is the ability to quantify when to stop intervals as opposed to just pushing through.

To answer your question, yes, I think my background has a lot to do with why this was effective for me. I like tough workouts, and I couldnt imagine riding around in zone 1 all day. Did it deliver optimum performance for my genetic potential based on hours trained? Who the hell knows. I felt prepared. I'll call that successful.

Again, I am not advocating never going longer in training. I think training long has its place, to test pacing and nutrition protocols. I was satisfied with both fronts so I didn't go longer. I also completed a 1/2 earlier in the season, and I have run a few long races before (though that was my first marathon). I felt satisfied that I knew what it felt like to run and bike for long periods of time. It hurts. No need to do it every weekend to remind myself.

This is a good thread. Usually when someone brings up CrossFit and/or CrossFit Endurance, folks react negatively. Seems like with the article in Triathlete Magazine, and some of the trends in training, minds are open to the theory behind CFE. Personally, I've been a CF'er for nearly 5 years, and a "triathlete" for 2 seasons. CrossFit is my primary focus, but CrossFit Endurance has allowed me to be a part of a sport and do well (relatively speaking) at it, without the massive training volume usually called for with traditional LSD training. There are good points on both sides of the table, like always, but there is no doubt the CF/CFE works.

If there's anyone in the SF Bay Area (East Bay) who is interested in CrossFit Endurance, feel free to contact me. I'm a trainer at a local CF gym and we've started an endurance team (based on CFE principles).

Hope everyone's off-season was good, looking forward to racing in 2011!!!

Got it. I missed the 8-12 hours of sport specific training a week and I agree (and hope) that is enough.

Thanks and once again - thanks for serving.

Barry

If I may ask a question - why are you spending so much time on a product or service that is so shrouded in mystery?

A product or service should not require you to climb a mountain and decipher what some oracle's incoherent ramblings mean. They should clearly state their philosophy, methodology, and provide clear evidence of specific results.

There is a furniture/appliance warehouse that this reminds me of: they promise all these amazing discounts and people on tv tell you how much money they saved. However, you have to be a member to go the store, or be invited. An invitation comes with a sales pitch, and you have to decide on the spot whether or not to join.

Even if it seems like a good deal on the surface, why would you do business with a person or company that shady?

If you go on Training Peaks, you can preview any of the packaged training programs, and even email the author. In many cases you can read their books to discover their principles.

To put all this another way, would you put up with all this from a person instead of a program?

I think you are probably right. It does work. But I think the main issue is 'compared to what'. I was told by a CF'er the other day that it was better than my routine. Problem is he did not know what my routine was.

Don't get me wrong, anything encouraging a couch potato into getting off his ass. Or anything that makes someone physically better than they are must be a good thing. But these cross training principles are not that new. Various armed forces and other sports have used similar principles before. They just have not been 'packaged' quite as nicely as McCrossFit. They also have not been used by the best triathletes to get the fastest times .... even though their coaches must be well aware of them.

Maybe the key is in the 'Train Less'. Who does that appeal to? Those who don't want to train as much. In which case it may work for those people. They will get more out of doing less time at CF than they would out of less time at a slow endurance pace out in the field. Plus the peer pressure may be motivational to them. But are they at an advantage over those of us who love the training and have the time? The coaches of the words best triathletes would argue otherwise I think.

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

I don't think there is anything shrouded in mystery...the CrossFit.com website is free, as is the CrossFit Endurance site. You can go on either at any time, check the daily workout, and there are links that explain the movements, etc. Seems like about as 'open source' as could be. Any mystery associated would be the lack of exposure and newness of the program. Yes the concepts and ideas have been around for awhile, but CF and CFE are fairly new.


Great point, and I think this addresses CFE very well. The majority of triathletes (me included) are not in the top 5% of the field albeit for whatever reason (talent, time, training, or combination of all). So, maybe there are folks who do not need the incredibly high training volume of traditional LSD training to have a PB at a race? Doesn't mean they want to train less, maybe just means don't need to train more.

Total Immersion --> PowerCranks --> Crossfit --> _________?

The ultimate question is which debatable training philosophy are we going to argue about next?


If Ironman changes the distances to .05mi / 3mi / .25mi and requires triathletes to swing kettle bells in transition then I will consider Crossfit. Until then I'll stay with SBR of high-volume and variable intensity with 'conventional' core work every other day (which is what I'm doing now). CF's founder could issue a statement that triathletes are wrong in thinking 2+2=4, and that 4 is best achieved by adding 3 and -12, but that doesn't mean we should debate it endlessly. He'd just be wrong.

Core workout is an extremely important part of triathlon training. CF is one way to accomplish that. Though one would be mistaken in replacing SBR training with it (if that's what CFE is doing), those that do seem to be happy with it and are okay with their performances. Whatever gets people training. A Crossfitter may have a 13 hour Ironman, but they also probably don't have the body of a pre-pubescent Asian girl, so to each their own. . .

<No offense intended to anyone by my post. I've just been following the threads and finally decided to post. For those who are passionate about this issue, best not to take me seriously. Even though I'm being serious.>

---

-------
http://www.y-rocket.blogspot.com/

I agree, CFE compared to what kind of SBR workouts. The original article was pretty vague on what people were doing before CF changed their lives. As I read it I was unimpressed by the 1 mile hard 1 mile easy sort of thing. If all I was doing was long slow training, then yes CF could be better. And yes adding a bit of strength work is good. But I don't see how it can be good to replace a real SBR program (i.e one that includes hard work, like a track session or masters swim or hard bike intervals) with lots of CF.

---

Brian
“Eat and Drink, spin the legs and you’re going to effin push (today).” A Howe

That is what happens to me. Someone who does CF tell me that it will make me better at triathlon and I can train less. They know absolutely zero about my workouts except that I do train a lot compared to most people. Therefore, because some people can be mediocre on less training I should adopt it? No.

If CF/CFE works for you and makes you feel good (or that you've forged elite fitness) about yourself and/or better than people like me, good for you.

I'd be interested in seeing an entire CFE season training plan laid out. Saying that the WOD is published does not make it 100% open. If CFE is so great, it should contribute a FREE training plan over on beginnertriathlete.com and let the people decide what they want to do.

To me, CF/CFE is so much about building brand and brand loyalty and profitability of the special gyms and trainers. Not so much different than other fitness concepts. Convincing the masses to sell it to others for free is a brilliant marketing strategy.

I'll stick with my double top secret training.

CFE does not replace SBR with CF. It supplements one with the other. 6 hard sessions of Real SBR Work each week, seems thats what many triathletes do already.
.

If you are interested in seeing a free CFE training plan go to www.crossfitendurance .com and collect workouts from the WOD archives. Everything is there. Everything is free. CFE is not a cookie cutter download plan. The program is varied and adapts to what works and what doesn't. New workouts are posted daily. Part of the fun of training in CF and CFE is not knowing what the workout will be tomorrow. CFE is just not a program like you are used to using in that respect.

---

Ryan Hunt
Owner - CrossFit Monrovia
http://www.crossfitmonrovia.com

my point was that when I train I aim to hit different goals in different workouts through the year. Some days I'll work on the the short hard stuff be it track running, bike sprints, or hill repeats. Other days may be geared towards LT work with 20-30 min intervals. I do very little "just go out for a long day " run or ride. If all I did was long steady work, then any added intensity work would be beneficial. In fact, perhaps a CFe type of only hard 20-30 min work would be better then ONLY long steady SBR. but is CFE better than a well designed SBR plan?

---

Brian
“Eat and Drink, spin the legs and you’re going to effin push (today).” A Howe

I still think you misunderstand the program. Where is this 20-30 min limit? One of my favorite CFE workouts is 3x5k repeats (run.) They program from 200m repeats up through 13.1 mile TTs.

I have never said it was better than any other "well-desgined" program. It's the same as what you are describing. Hill repeats, track work, longer intervals, tempo and TT rides or runs. I am always comparing my TT times from week to week, and from one point in the season or another. Measured and repeatable. Like you say, there is no workout with no point. Does anyone still train that way?

I also do longer rides and runs to test nutrition and pacing, say when I am building for a big race. Then I make sure to program proper recovery appropriate to the distance.

I just don't understand how this differs so much from what you are doing? I just do 4 extra crossfit workouts per week. If I called it "core work" would that make everyone calm down?

I'm calm. I'll wander back over to the CFE site again and look further. The w/u's I'd seen on the web and in the article were all pretty short (1 hour). I have an open mind and hit the gym pretty regularly between october and march.

---

Brian
“Eat and Drink, spin the legs and you’re going to effin push (today).” A Howe

Calmer than you are, Dude.

I follow a weekly cycle like what is described in the article (CF 4 days, CFE 6 days-2 days per sport, 1 Rest day). A 30k TT is the longest distance I have seen but it certainly doesn�t have to be the longest. While preparing for 2010 IMAZ I did 3-5 longer rides to test and refine my fuel, hydration, and salt plans. I had not ridden a 100miles in a few years and did not want figure out on race day I didn�t have enough fuel. Once I was confident in my fuel, hydration, and salt plan I went back to the CFE workouts. Regardless of your training plan its OK to tweak it to meet your concerns. My wife and I are training for St George. She is deathly afraid of the swim and she is an accomplished runner so we swapped a run day for an extra swim day.

It takes some time to get used to going out six days a week and performing max effort workouts. This adjustment period may require extra rest days. I haven�t met anyone yet that hasn�t gone through a period where they seem perpetually sore and performing poorly. Give yourself time for your body to adjust. Once you get used to it, recovery becomes a function of nutrition, hydration, age, post workout maintenance (ice, SMR, stretching, etc.), and sleep.

Performing well is the simplest cure for burnout. If you are committed to recovery you can perform day in and day out.

As for injury, I have found the people who are as committed to recovery as they are to their workouts don�t get injured.

Did i mention recovery is important. haha.



--

---

Ryan Hunt
Owner - CrossFit Monrovia
http://www.crossfitmonrovia.com

Sure sounds like "Crossfit" workout is helping these athletes

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/...players-illness.html

Seriously, to what benefit is performing 100 squats or 100 bench presses to an athlete, let alone an endurance athlete?

First, �Crossfit� isn�t mentioned anywhere in the article. A boatload of squats and bench press does not make it a crossfit workout. Be fair.

Second, crappy programming and coaching can make any training methodology look bad. Blame the strength and conditioning coach for causing the injuries to those athletes not the training methodology.

To an endurance athlete, 100 un-weighted, full depth, squats are good for flexibility, balance, coordination, leg/hip strength and speed. Everyone should be doing squats. 100 bench press are not as useful.

-

---

Ryan Hunt
Owner - CrossFit Monrovia
http://www.crossfitmonrovia.com

Did you SERIOUSLY just ask why squats and/or bench press would benefit an athlete (a collegiate football player at that!). Maybe it's time to get off the bike and take a look around. For the record, the article never mentioned CF and only talked about squats and sled drags (sounds like the football conditioning I did as a kid).

Who's most susceptible to Rhabdo? I wonder....
http://scholar.google.com/...is=1&oi=scholart

No, he seriously asked what the benefit of performing 100 Bench Presses and 100 Squats was and the answer is none. The same benefit of performing 30 snatches for time. Unless the goal is Crossfit's "Metabolic Conditioning", then there is no benefit. But I'm sure Crossfit HQ will say they have the science to prove otherwise, and then in the same breath claim that peer review is pointless (which they have done). And FYI, 100 Bodyweight Squats was a Crossfit workout previously.

Judging by your past posts...you're not a fan of strength training. There's no arguing or evidence that will change your mind, but as far as benefits squats and presses? Do you have a better way for the football players to train? Maybe countless junk hours on the bike? or road running miles until there's no cartilage in your knees? or swim until your shoulder falls off?

As far as your assessment of CF HQ, you've read up a bit. Yes they defend what they believe is a great path to fitness, who doesn't?

You are 100% correct with your sarcasm , for a football player, countless junk hours on the bike, running road miles until there is no cartilage in your knees and swim until your shoulder falls off is as pointless as a triathlete performing CrossFIT..... it is call sport specific training for a reason!!!

I do agree that strength training for triathletes can be and is beneficial, WHEN it is functional and specifically designed to improve performance.

This is the crux of our disagreement then...whether or not it can improve performance.

Says you, a blind-leading-the-blind instructor with one Ironman under your belt in 13:49. Keep up those squats and maybe you can crack 13:30 in your next one.

What does that have to do with anything? The guy finished an IM, his first one, who cares the time!? Seems like a decent time. Who are you to say his time is good or bad? Cheers to an "Elitist Triathlete" comment at it's best.

thread resurrection/destruction- I have zero doubt that CF has put me in better overall physical shape over this off season. It has not necessarily made me a better triathlete, but it has improved my overall wellness. My balance and flexibility has significantly improved (this is significant in my injury prevention and life wellness) as has my leg strength. Thus far, my short distance run times have improved modestly (2 min 5k- this could have also been accomplished by more track workouts). I believe that my fast twitch muscles are firing like never before (seen my swim and bike times drop- again over short distances).
What I have noticed on the bike is a higher speed and cadence (too poor for power) on 30 mile rides. Not sure if it will hold for longer (it�s still too cold for me to go outside�I am a pansy).
I still do not believe CF/CFE makes sense for serious or elite triathletes. It just simply lacks the specificity to eek out the final 5%.
I am, however, more convinced that this makes sense for half-arse triathletes like me. Those that dabble, those that finish MOP or even the latter part of the front pack. It pushes me more than I would otherwise push myself. This alone is helpful.
In the end, after all the analysis and good skepticism (I still am skeptical of the whole CF/CFE world!), I will continue doing it because it is fun for me and it seems to keep me at my historical level of tri-competitiveness with less time commitment.

Great points...but may I ask if the evidence, in your own results and "feel", points to CF/CFE benefiting you...why the skepticism? I fully understand the knee-jerk reaction to the 'latest-greatest' craze, but to me, this doesn't fall in that boat. What would need to happen to alleviate your doubts?

Thanks for keeping the thread going with positive feedback.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you kidding? It's hardly elitest......I want my dentist to have nicer teeth than me and I sure as hell want my coach to be faster than me OR be working with athletes who are.

Pretend this is a forum about cooking and a chef comes on here and tells you his recipe, stating that everyone should be using that ingredient. You do a little homework and find out that the chef making this recommendation is really just an average cook AT BEST working over at Applebees.

Conversely, you have other chefs on the same forum who work at 5-star restaurants and completely disagree with the recommendation of Chef Applebee, stating you don't really need that ingredient at all.

If you want to take your culinary advice from the chef at Applebees, that's your perogative, but I'd rather build my cookbook from the those chefs who cook a hell of a lot better than I.

He needs to race harder

Take it easy cowboy. That kind of junk comment makes this forum unreadable. If you disagree with my comment, give up your well thought and experienced opinion on the subject rather than attacking me personally.

This thread is about whether CF and CFE can prepare you for an IM. My experience says it can. I have finished 1 Sprint, 1 Olympic, 1 HIM, and 1 IM doing CF and CFE training. Others like SMUGFIT, have given their experience with CF and CFE as well. Take it or leave it. I'm not trying to sell anyone.

---

Ryan Hunt
Owner - CrossFit Monrovia
http://www.crossfitmonrovia.com

No, of course you aren't.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

To alleviate my doubts, quite frankly, I would need to commit to CF/CFE solely for an IM and compare it to my prior IM done under a standard coach led training methodology.

Without question, my skepticism remains based primarily on the marketing/pitch factor of CF being the best and only way. This just simply is not the case. It is clearly A way and it may have certain advantages associated with it. CF loses credibility with me by pushing itself as the only way when in reality many of the training principles have been used and around for ages.

I still hold to the fact that to go long, you need to go long (especially on the bike). I think this holds even more true for people like me that are the avg. joe triathlete. I am truly concerned for folks training CF/CFE who will never ride 100 miles before their IM. I am actively monitoring a few folks who are trying CF/CFE this year and will see how they perform. Since I am doing shorter stuff this year, I will likely try it (although I am already having problems following it as I keep doing my Sat. 10 mile run or Sat. long bike ride). I find I have a hard time giving up some of the longer stuff as (much like CF), it makes me feel better, more fit, able to eat breakfast tacos, etc.

I do think CF/CFE is a viable training regime. I just remain suspicious if it holds up on long course. Would love to hear updates from anyone doing CF/CFE this season to tell us (honestly) how it goes.

Actually, you haven't read many of my posts if you don't think I am a fan of strength training. I absolutlely love strength training, just not Crossfit. I guess you never played football but if you did, you should certainly know that 100 Bench Presses and 100 squats is not a good workout program. As Dan John has said before, anyone can make someone workout hard and puke. And that is the problem with Crossfit...well one of many actually. Maybe you personally suffer from injuries and don't do well with large volume work, to that I have no idea. But if anyone thinks CFE will produce a champion on the national stage, they are sorely mistaken. Why do you think BMac at CFE is DNF at half of his races now. He is no longer able to recruit from the years of aerobic base that he built b/c he has neglected it for about 4-5 years. $1000 and a Crossfit Level 1 certification (and don't even start on the ANSI crap) does not make one an expert or a coach. It simply makes one a franchisee. Take a look at some of the Crossfit affiliate sites, 75% of them program "METCON" workouts everyday. Even the affiliate guy who is posting here does METCON all the time at his box. To that, I would love to know why. Otherwise, Crossfit and Crossfit Endurance should drop the "ELITE" and just workout. If you have to try and convince everyone that your system works, you better have the data and Crossfit doesn't have it.

A little late to the party, but I love this.

-Squats don't go past my normal ROM, therefore how do they help flexibility?

-I do not have to be overly careful to avoid falling over, therefore how do they challenge my balance?

-I can easily bend and straighten both legs simultaneously, therefore how do they help my coordination?

-As for strength in the purest sense, well, I challenge you to find any activity, easy enough to do 100 times, that will improve my 1 or even 5 rep max!

-Physiojoe

---

-Physiojoe
Instagram: @thephysiojoe
Cycling coach, Elite racer on Wooster Bikewerks p/b Wootown Bagels

Fair enough. I'm not as good a tiathlete as you so my advice carries no weight. So John Wooden's advice was crap because he couldn't play the game as well as some of his athletes?


Here you go. Mark Allen is faster than you and he says you should lift weights and squat.

http://www.markallenonline.com/maoArticles.aspx?AID=12

http://www.active.com/...rength_Exercises.htm

---

Ryan Hunt
Owner - CrossFit Monrovia
http://www.crossfitmonrovia.com

Not the guy you are replying to, but the second link sounded so much like an infomercial I couldn't go past the first few sentences.

Oh, and I believe he said "I sure as hell want my coach to be faster than me OR be working with athletes who are." You must have missed the second half.

-Physiojoe

---

-Physiojoe
Instagram: @thephysiojoe
Cycling coach, Elite racer on Wooster Bikewerks p/b Wootown Bagels

Let's look at this in two parts:

Fair enough. I'm not as good a tiathlete as you so my advice carries no weight. So John Wooden's advice was crap because he couldn't play the game as well as some of his athletes?
If you were a 13:49 IM finisher and had a crew of athletes under you going 8, 9 or 10 hours, than no, it wouldn't matter. The fact that you go 13:49 AND have no good triathletes under your tutelage means yeah....you're advice carries no weight.

Take it like this, imagine I walk into your CFE dungeon, put 135 pounds on the bar and crank out 4 reps squating because that's all I can do. I then start to tell others how they should go about doing more/better squats, when I can't even do a good amount myself. I hate to break it to you, but your 13:49 looks to us a lot like my piddly 4 squats would look to you and your CFE minions.

As for the Wooden reference, you're joking right? How about this...when ONE of your CF/CFE athletes wins A national championship in ANYTHING related to an endurance sport, PLEASE let me know and I'll apologize.

Here you go. Mark Allen is faster than you and he says you should lift weights and squat.
http://www.markallenonline.com/maoArticles.aspx?AID=12
http://www.active.com/...rength_Exercises.htm

#1 the link to the MAO article doesn't even mention a squat.

#2, did you actually read that active.com article? Let me give you a little help, one line read:

I fought going to the gym for years until I reached my mid-30s.

Can we agree that by 'mid-30s' he means about 35? Any idea how old Mark Allen was when he won the ITU World Championship? Any idea how old he was when he won the majority of his Kona titles? I hate to break this to you, but if you do a little homework you'll see that Mark Allen became the athlete he is without squats. Incredible huh?!?

Hey guys.

First thing. I must say this has been a great thread in that none of the dialogue has descended into name calling, sarcasm or personal attacks. I wanted to post to address some of the most common issues we here about CrossFit and CrossFit Endurance and their role in endurance sports. I thought I'd join the discussion as there were a bunch of issues that were addressed that I think I can help clarify or chime in on.

Full disclosure, I am one of 5 CFE head coaches and ran about a dozen certs last year. Additionally, I have a background in marathon swimming, marathon running, Ironman triathlon and collegiate swimming and run an endurance training business (www.gotrimax.com).

I've seen several themes come up in different places, so I'm going to try and capture a bunch of common issues and hit them one at a time. Please bear with me as I try to go through the topics I noted and please let me know if I've missed anything.

"A shortcut to fitness"... I think much of the cornerstone of CF and CFE lie in the time/result ratio. That is, the status quo of fitness is very much defined by how much someone trains (i.e. a 5 mile run per day, 60 mins on a stairmaster, etc). I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of the public believes that "6 pack abs" and other elements of visual fitness demand great amounts of time. I think anyone reading this thread knows this is not the case for general physical preparedness. As for the endurance community, the same traditional thought process is very much alive. That is, if one researches any "beginner" or even "intermediate" training plans via beginner triathlete.com or cool running.com one would find a periodized training plan that features a 10% increase in volume for about 3 weeks followed by a 1 week reduction of volume of about 15% for recovery. This overall concept is repeated until the athlete peaks with a 20-24 mile run 3 weeks before a marathon or a 6-8 hour brick in the case of an Ironman triathlon. So, much of the dialogue around CFE is centered around the "absurdity" of drastic reductions in volume vs. the status quo and a great premium put on intensity.

"Disastrous for an elite"... I think this quote was pulled from a post on another thread noting the downside of an elite endurance athlete taking on CF/CFE. I am unaware of a professional endurance athlete taking on this protocol, but I am not omniscient. Additionally, I will note that the #2 professional American Ironman triathlete Andy Potts had never run more than 15 miles or ridden more than 60 miles at one time in his life before his first ever Ironman triathlon in Kona where he (if memory serves) 5th overall and a 2:53 marathon. No, I'm not suggesting that Andy Potts is a CrossFitter. All I'm noting here is that volume in training does not need to be achieved for elite results. Also of note, Potts was a world class swimmer at Michigan and a professional triathlete at the Olympic distance for years before jumping into Ironman. As for you guys already screaming "previous aerobic base", hold your horses....I'll get to it!

"Years of base"... This is the beginning of the "Catch 22" of CFE and goal of trying to empirically substantiate its value from a scientific perspective. The "advertised" CF/CFE protocol calls for 4-6 CF workouts of the day WODs per week with an additional 2 WODs per sport of specificity. Hence, a triathlete would do 4-6 CF WODs per week and then 6 additional WODs, 1 time trial and 1 interval of each discipline. I spell this out as this protocol (as described above) has only existed as such for just over 2 years. This puts the protocol in a tight spot to draw upon success or failure. Here's where it gets dicey. In only 2 years of existence, who has used such a protocol? Well, the majority of the users that I am aware of came from an LSD (long, slow, distance) background. What this means is that the majority of those claiming success may, in fact, be "tainted" as many critics will cite the years of an aerobic base as the root cause of their success and not the protocol. Some will cite over training, lack of taper knowledge, etc to "explain" such athletes' performances--because they "know" it can't be the protocol!!! (couldn't help myself). Of course the other side of this issue is the newbie. "Yeah, such and such used CFE and was successful 'cause he had X years of aerobic base, what about somebody with no base!?" When such athletes are put forth, they, too are criticized as having no base and any beginner will automatically improve doing something they weren't doing before. The point here is that trying to establish a pure starting point with definitive, clear correlation to specific adaptations in the training can be very, very difficult.

"Who has qualified for Kona (triathlon) or Boston (running)"... In other threads people will note earlier that "thousands" of people qualify for Kona each year. For those out there interested in better qualifying such an accomplishment, here's some quick math. There are about 28 sanctioned Ironman events each year with a rough average of about 2400 entrants at each. This puts the worldwide total of such athletes (not accounting for people doing multiple IMs) at just over 67,000. So, if only 1600 people qualify for Kona each year, you are looking at a 2% of the Ironman triathlon population making the cut. Hence, anyone using CF/CFE principles to qualify for such an event would be representative of less than two percent of the triathlon population. As for qualifying for Boston, I can't even begin to tally the number of entrants for Boston qualifier marathons or the participants as they are in the dozens of millions and I think Boston has less than 25,000 runners. Point being, both standards are high and while I do not know of anyone using CF/CFE to qualify for Kona, I know of at least a dozen who have qualified for Boston.

"What is the logic of no long S/B/R in CFE?"... Many people scoff at the notion that we rarely (if ever) program activity longer than 90-120 minutes for any of our published "ultra" protocols. When we respond by saying that we have not found a reason to go longer than this (as high intensity work at this time domain can be overly damaging and result in multiple days off post effort) critics will respond "Well, if you don't need to, then where are your Kona/Boston qualifiers?" The free protocols that are published daily on CFE are not designed to be used verbatim by athletes of all backgrounds and capabilities. Just as the CF main site publishes WODs for the masses (80-90% of us?) those athletes competing at the CrossFit Games (again, less than 1% of global Crossfitters) don't necessarily follow that protocol. In fact, I know many will train multiple times per day. However, I know that Chris Spealer does not train multiple times per day, all year. He will only do multiple day WODs several months before the Games or the qualifiers. What does this mean to us? It means two things. First, the protocols published via CFE are published for a broad and inclusive endurance community--say 98% of endurance athletes. Second, the CFE protocol is based in strength which is to say that should an athlete be able to handle more volume (across ALL modalities--not just sport specific ones) additional volume is prescribed. In fact, CFE highly advocates longer efforts past 90 minutes to test one's nutrition and pacing protocols. We just don't believe going long without intensity is as beneficial as doing so with intensity to build stamina (remember Andy Potts?).

I am hopeful this post will shed some light on the issue of CFE and its place in endurance activity. For those of you interested in viewing the training blogs of some of our athletes who have chronicled their journeys to Ironman events using CF/CFE, here is a listing:

http://martinstrainingblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.danbtrainingblog.blogspot.com/
http://00stake.blogspot.com/
http://trimamma23.blogspot.com/
http://alegassa.blogspot.com/
http://cwunderle.blogspot.com/
http://janetrijourney.blogspot.com/
http://grigs-lpim2010.blogspot.com/
http://www.itri2.blogspot.com/


Max
www.gotrimax.com

Will your doggie cross fit program help my pooch complete the iditarod? He just doesn't have the time for a traditional training program.

Woah woah woah hold up.... there is a CrossFit Games??? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Yes, with a million dollar purse put up by Reebok.

http://games.crossfit.com/...ot-center-1-mil,990/

No it won't prepare your dog for the iditarod. It will teach you how to include your dog in your exercise routine.

So we've moved off of digging at my IM times to digging at my business. Stick to the topic.


To meltingpot,
I deserve that response for trying to be clever. The first article has a recommendation for doing weight training year round. The second article, going past the infomercial and references to old age, has a good description of the squat. I have found other articles describing Allen's turing 35 and including weight training in his program. They have simliar accounts to his perfomance declining, and how adding weight training helped him retain his form throughout the season and win races.

here is one -
http://outsideonline.com/.../0297/9702festr.html

--

---

Ryan Hunt
Owner - CrossFit Monrovia
http://www.crossfitmonrovia.com

As someone with 25 yrs of training exp. I feel like I need to break this tie. Great reading by the way!

CF has a place in fitness only because Americans are fat and need to move. As far as I understand CF is considered so dangerous that insurance companies won't take them on as client's, they had to start their own fund. I don't know this to be fact, I have just been told by several brokers. Ryan is this true? If this is accurate, that is truly scary. Another danger is that most CF instructors do a weekend course to become certified, then proclaim themselves to be strength and fitness experts. It took me 12 yrs in the business to feel that had a clue.

I agree that a properly planned strength program can help all athletes, in all season's. That is a scientific fact.
CF workout's are super hard no question, but if thats all I need, I can go to 24 hour fitness and take a step class. The directors of CF are great at marketing a product! Thats another fact.

The 2 biggest problems are incompetent or under educated trainers (you guys are not CSCS, so stop calling yourself a strength coaches. Please.) Also, advising 40 and 50 year old people to do olympic lifts until they puke or pass out is just crazy. The impact CF will have on some people in the short run, fat loss, strength gains and sense of community, pail in comparison to the future orthopedic problems they will most likely suffer from.

To conclude- Endurance athletes need to lift and stay strong. A must! CF folks are fine, except when they put people in danger by telling them not to prepare for there chosen sport. I can wrestle pigs to get ready for a half too, but is that is what is best for my health, no. Racing for 3, 4 let alone 13 hrs is dangerous, the body needs to do the activities to get the proper cellular development, you know mitochondria development and capillary growth. These things won't happen doing cross fit. Well in truth, not near as much!
One can find so many better programs out there. CF is just well marketed.

Actually I think you will find there is a lot of science saying the complete opposite.


See above. "Need" could be subjective.

I am all ears, or eyes in this case, show me some research that says strength training won't help.? I'm not saying a CF type workout in season or ever! But one that addresses core, balance, rotator cuff, gluts for knee health etc. Need is up to the person! Also, did anyone check to see if Mark Allen is really endorsing cross fit as a previous poster suggested. Ha ha.

Is this part of the CF spiel to convince you to keep your WOD short?
I always thought exercise stimulated stronger joints, including cartilage growth. There are more sedentary times getting knee replacements than runners

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826297

For the ladies:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10378917

Sigh.

ed Sci Sports Exerc.[/url] 1993 Aug;25(8):952-9.Dry-land resistance training for competitive swimming.
Tanaka H, Costill DL, Thomas R, Fink WJ, Widrick JJ.
Human Performance Laboratory, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306.
Abstract
To determine the value of dry-land resistance training on front crawl swimming performance, two groups of 12 intercollegiate male swimmers were equated based upon preswimming performance, swim power values, and stroke specialties. Throughout the 14 wk of their competitive swimming season, both swim training group (SWIM, N = 12) and combined swim and resistance training group (COMBO, N = 12) swam together 6 d a week. In addition, the COMBO engaged in a 8-wk resistance training program 3 d a week. The resistance training was intended to simulate the muscle and swimming actions employed during front crawl swimming. Both COMBO and SWIM had significant (P < 0.05) but similar power gains as measured on the biokinetic swim bench and during a tethered swim over the 14-wk period. No change in distance per stroke was observed throughout the course of this investigation. No significant differences were found between the groups in any of the swim power and swimming performance tests. In this investigation, dry-land resistance training did not improve swimming performance despite the fact that the COMBO was able to increase the resistance used during strength training by 25-35%. The lack of a positive transfer between dry-land strength gains and swimming propulsive force may be due to the specificity of training.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

This insurance thing sounds like more of the CF mystique/marketing. In my experience EVERYTHING is insurable (I have some comical experience with this).

I do agree with the concern over the weekend certification and undertrained "experts." The CF box I go to is comprised of mostly middle aged folks who thankfully are usually smart enough to know when to tap the brakes on CF excess. But, I have seen people attempt to lift things they never should have (most get away with it but it is very dangerous). That said, I am not sure most exercises being done (particlarly non-oly lifting) are anything too difficult to assess or program.As for ages, we have lots of 30's, 40' and 50's doing the WOD's, but I agree with a concern of the impact/ability of older folks to do CF.

For the record, I am quite positive Mark Allen is not promoting CF! He's too smart to sponsor something and not get paid!

BTW, thanks for the article on swimming and weight training, I am trying to find it to read what resistance training they included.

Appreciate all the responses here, I think it has at least provided an outlet of real information and discussion. Thankfully, most appear to approach this as this is what I do versus this is what EVERYONE must do.

In the end we all have different goals (mine is to keep in great overall physical shape to set an example for my kiddos). I still love running marathons and doing tris, but mostly I just like to have fun!

So all research has to be taken in context. I have done my own research with full documentation on the benefits of strength work by swimmers, runners etc.. We can all agree that you can find some research from all angles, supporting one claim or another. In this case swimming was the focus. Anyone with half a brain knows that swimming is about technique, less about overall power or strength, although both improved would lead to better splits in the water.

When (most) people talk about strength they think of squats, presses etc. When I set up a program for a swimmer it includes these, some of the time. In my experience, the greatest improvement I have seen in swimmers is, when I focus my strength programs on shoulder stabilizing moves. (Improving the function of the scapula and also improving the strength of the rotator cuff and shoulders in general. This provides for better shoulder health and more compression/ slash stability = more power and consistency in the water. My wife was an all American and national level swimmer in college who can attest to the improvements. (as can the 1000's of swimmers I have worked with over the years) At the base level a pre-hab strength plan can keep a swimmer in the water injury free. The added strength and stability to the shoulder will lead to more efficiency over all distances.
I see the research and agree with "their finding's", for their research. Remember it's all about the individual program and how it's applied!
</html

That's great. Can you provide a link to your published research? Thanks.

Failing that, please show us some published research that shows that strength training benefits swimming performance. Then, maybe we can all agree.

So, first you asked for "some research that says strength training won't help." When I did so, you amended your request to exclude swimming because, well, swimming isn't about raw power, it's about technique (and even then you disputed the results of Costill's study, which showed that despite increased strength the swimmers didn't get any faster.) What's your response to the myriad of studies showing increased strength didn't improve endurance cycling? "Well, anyone with half a brain knows that cycling is about endurance?"

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I didn't amend it. Just became more specific. I have not been published nor have I tried, if you exclude my personal experience, that is your choice! Remember I am saying that strength with a planned out endurance plan will help performance, I am not endorsing CF belief that you should substitute it for running, riding etc.

So how would you go about measuring your results with someone who improved using your strength program with that same person had they not used the program? How do you know their improvements had nothing to do with your strength/resistance regimen.
It's pretty hard to be neutral and look at the data objectively when you are basing it completely on "personal experience".

Ah, okay.



Costill and his study say otherwise, but they have published data to back up their claim. Oh, right, swimming doesn't count, I forgot.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

This makes a good deal of sense. I have perused this thread, some good info and some ignorance and I think some of it needs to be separated out. My addition to throw on the top.

1st, I think there is a difference between a CF/CFE program guidlines and how that program is implemented. To draw an analogy, a tri program that utilizes longer sport specifc training might be a great program, but if the athlete doesn't get proper shoes, running technique, bike fit, pedal stroke work, swim fitness and flexibility, that athlete could hurt themselves. CFE could be harmful to an ignorant athlete just the same as the SBR programs, so I think we should not mix the program and the application of the program. Athletes have a responsibility to themselves to stay within their abilities and training.

2nd, goals of the athlete. For me, I have a Rugby back ground (having played for about 8 years) and started doing triathlons 4 years ago as recovery when I herniated two discs in my back and could no longer play. I am a 225# clyde who does alright, but is looking for improvement, combine that with the fact I have 2 small kids and busy work schedule that involves travel I need to fit it all in. CFE helps me work it all in. Will I be faster, I don't know. Will I be slower, I doubt it. I can say I feel stronger (core and legs) but not just in a power sense, but in a springy/nimble sense. I have taken kettlebell classes to learn proper technique (highely recommended by the way) and have become pretty good at pullups and jump rope, so I am not a meat head gym rat, just a bigger fella who likes to race triathlons.

3rd, I think many people in the SBR camp are anti anything new. In my limited experience, they are a pretty crowd following in they mindset and so I am not surprised they do not respond well to this. Is it CFE or the fact that CFE is very different from what they have always done? Many who have done CFE have also done the traditional SBR programs, but many who are SBR focused have not done CFE. I think their is much misinformation there and the lack of experience clouds their views. I also think they are intimidated by the strength and conditioning as this is very new to many who might not have that sort of background. This doesn't mean I am in favor of CFE for everyone (see point number 2) but that also doesn't mean I am against it for everyone.

4th, the arguement that CFE trains you for CFE and not for triathlons...huh? I do mainly Sprints with some Olympic and Exterra distances events. Most events have areas of hills, gap closing, recovery, technical etc...CFE has many intervals that train in sport specifc chosen ways (swim bike and run) that help power, speed, recovery, sustained effort. I can't speak to an IM or a HIM, but for a Sprint or an Olympic, one would be hard pressed to argue CFE is anti SBR. The Strength and conditioning are pretty straightforward and work well for me. I have a different background and I am quite a bit stronger than most triathletes, so maybe I am less intimidated by the workouts.

Lastly, don't take what I say as gospel. I am not a poseur, I am also not a top age grouper. I am a an athlete cross training from another sport, who enjoys working out and being fit, who enjoys triathlons and wants to improve. I am confident I will as I can feel a difference after only one month. I still do my long rides, I still ride fixed geared on hills in the winter, I still run hills for training, but I can say that I feel pretty strong compared to last year and I feel confident going into this season.

Cheers and thanks.

A great question. Using the athletes feed back as to what they think has worked or not worked for them. Have they improved in body composition, stayed healthier and performed better. We can argue that it was just doing their sport that had them perform better. The science we apply today to strength and endurance training really has led us to a better understanding of what the benefits are. Lance Armstrong strength trains year round, so does Mr. Phelps does, as do the Kenyan national endurance teams, all of them.

I only argue that the way CF is designed is not scientifically correct. ACSM, NASM and most national strength and Fitness orgs. have come out against it. Or advised to hold off until further evidence is available.

As a former football player I used to train in the bigger, faster, stronger mantra that CF advocates. I am by experience, smarter and wiser now. I train hard, but with a true purpose. What these do is complete an Ironman in order to strengthen there ability to push the CF model. I have completed 6 Full Irons and 3 half irons, those don't qualify me as an expert nor qualified to disign or implement plans for others.

Swimming does count in my strength training point. I just question your understanding of what a strength program is. Are national teams in swimming, running and biking all strength train year round. The programs shift focuses depending where they are in their seasons!

Here is a nice link. http://www.pponline.co.uk/...-is-not-enough-40780

There are hundreds recent articles to support strength training in Multi sport. Citing a study done in 1993 is like saying we never came with antibiotics. The strength world has changed completely, the exercises we do are different what time a year we do them etc. Is all evidence based.

CF on the other hand is not. The study you touched on would be valid when referencing CF. This is because there programs that come out of the 70's and 80's. Again CF has a great community feel and they get some people moving who would not on their own. These are good things. The rest of it is just about making money. At what cost to peoples joints and quality of life later.
There are safer, more effective programs out there.

Ken,
Lets keep this simple. Strength is good! There are lots of middle aged women doing multi sport. Middle aged women are at a higher risk of ostioparosis. Most of us have crashed on our bikes, what would happen if our bones were brittle? Lots of runners develop stress fractures, right? The best way to fight it is by strength training. This is common knowledge.

What a crappy article. First they set up a strawman argument against strength training for triathletes, then they set about dismantling it.

Here's what it comes down to: no part of triathlon is strength-limited. Period. That's common sense.

And your analogy of Costill's study to antibiotics is silly. Feel free to provide references to studies that refute Costill's study. And to cite national swim programs as evidence that triathletes should strength train is silly, too: when triathletes put in 100,000 yards per week and have maxed out their technique and swim fitness, then they, too, can strength train for that last .1% gain.

Why don't you try this question: why are the best track cycling pursuiters, who only have to go some 4-5 minutes, built like road cyclists (in fact, they usually are road cyclists) and not like track sprinters? After all, the track sprinters are the strongest cyclists in the world and can put out the greatest power.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

The typical demographic of slowtwitch readers and posters isn't dominated by middle aged women (although there are likely a bunch).

Strength training is great for a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with going fast in triathlon. This is a typical strawman used by the pro strength training types on ST.

"You guys say strength training isn't good, but it IS good for W, X, and Y"

The reality of the situation is that everyone realizes that strength training is great for W, X and Y but it has very little bearing on Z (where Z is going fast in endurance sport events).

Ken what are your thoughts on strength training from an injury prevention stand point. I have never nor will I say that strength alone will lead someone to there best at any sport. Just part of the package. If you understand physiology of the body you would understand. Also are Olympic Tri team members all have a lifting program.

Man I wish Paulo weren't so busy nowadays....

If 35-50 is middle aged enough, I know of 30 of my friends and family on ST. Half being female. I am 1 person

Amazing what "common knowledge" gets wrong on a regular basis.

Actually impact sports provide more skeletal strain and hence better at stimulating growth and strength in bones. Stress fractures occur not through a lack of "strength" but over-use. A lack of muscular endurance surrounding the calves and shins may help reduce the incidence of stress fractures (one of the argument for barefoot or minimalist running).

Weight training does improve bone density but no-where as much as impact sports.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19197207

Strength is good for certain things. Correct a few people don't understand that. Only CF instructors will tell you that CF alone will make you a good multi sport participant. I have just said that in my opinion its a must. In general stronger muscles mean more power. But if someones power to weight ratio doesn't add up, they will still be slow.

I can only tale you that to be false. My wife is a DPT and has ascess to Pubmed, I don't. When she gets home I will link it. Runners have more lower leg stress fractures then any other populations. The research shows that 2-5 miles a week is beneficial to bone strengthening. Because most of us go beyond that, the free raticals actually start to degrade bone strength.

My thoughts are that more injuries are caused by strength training than are prevented by strength training.

I think you don't understand physiology...and triathletes that read this forum.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Well apparently my PHD is worth nothing. And I am a Tri geek. CF workouts and that type do cause more injuries. If you read my post you will see I have stated that.

Joe- I agree.

Your Ph.D. might very well be worth a whole bunch. It's just not apparent in this thread.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

That's because they're runners. I bet if you compared ex-runners to sedentary types, the sedentary types would get more stress fractures.

Power without duration is meaningless.

I'm trying really hard not to mention your spelling but it really is quite funny, especially for someone "with a phd."

I'm pretty rusty on this- but I believe osteoclasts produce free radicals. I don't think free radicals stimulate osteoclasts to break down bone?

-Physiojoe

---

-Physiojoe
Instagram: @thephysiojoe
Cycling coach, Elite racer on Wooster Bikewerks p/b Wootown Bagels

Fair point. Never been a strong point of mine. Plus I am horrible on the key board and never spell check. I respond in a hurry. I will link the research tonight!

False you say?

http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/...amp;context=bmed_fac

And everyone can access PubMed....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

Let me also reiterate, I am not saying CFE is for everybody, but I also don't think it is bad for people. I care more about overall fitness than just tri fitness. I am not certain how my training would change if my goals changed, so I can't speak to that. I just don't view CFE as voodoo either.

I can appreciate what you have to say and I do try to read it to understand it, but I don't think you offer the same courtesy. It seems you are talking in circles, disregarding the parts you choose, while arguing the incorrect points. you quoted,

"You say training precisely and scientifically has made you faster on less training, that is what the CFE WOD is my man. Focused, intense, concentrated drills and workouts specifically geared for ones specific sport.

Cool, so why do the strength part?

You seem to have an issue with strength training as a whole, which is cool with me, but you seem to gloss over HALF of the program that you appear to have no disagreement with?

I have a balanced workout with a mixture or Running, biking, strength training, MTBiking (swimming is folded in later). If somebody wants to disregard the strength training in favor of more tri stuff, that is their goal. If you read my points, my second point was understanding ones goals. Your goals are likely different than mine, so why do you want to argue about that. I have never said what you are doing is wrong, but in all your responses, you have tried to say that what I do is incorrect. It seems a professional (or somebody with your experience) would understand that people train differently and should train to their goals. If you read what I have written, all of it, you would see that. I have no problem with the traditional SBR training, I have friends it has worked for and I appreciate the efforts of those who go that path. It seems ignorant though to disregard something that has worked for others, whether it be called CFE or something else. Triathlons are fun for most people, the training should be fun too. If CFE gets people training, excited about training and triathlons, then what is wrong with it? Again, why are people afraid of?

As for all the science you say I never acknowledge, you conveniently leave all of that unaddressed as well. From many racers I have seen, a smooth stroke engages the full range of muscles, efficient and smooth spinning especially for rollers and hills. Mashing is what folks in spin class do, that is not cycling my friend. At 24, you might be able to mash, eventually you have to learn to ride.

With all of that, this conversation is less about training and helping triathletes in training, but about protecting turf. It is important to offer helpful criticism of a program, but intellectually dishonest to continue the way you and others have, addressing only the part of the program that you want, ignoring the parts you don't want to discuss, and name dropping science that you have yet to produce.


What would be helpful is if folks with your training would be able to properly break down CFE, pros and cons, parts worthwhile, parts not worthy. Additions to the programs etc. Instead, it is much easier to do the opposite. Disappointing and a waste.

Three starting points for reading about a smooth pedal stroke...google is your friend. I must say, I have never had a discussion with somebody who argued against a smooth pedal stroke. What an odd thing to be against. The joke about triathletes being crappy cyclists, I think you are proving that.

http://www.bicycling.com/...ur-best-pedal-stroke

http://sweatscience.com/...ly-dead-centre-size/

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/...ullstory&id=5440


So, you are just against strength training, regardless of whether it is CFE or something else. That is a conversation for a different time.


This conversation with you now has context. I feel much better now.

Except for that whole Coyle study showing that national-class cyclists had "less smooth" pedal strokes than less prolific regional class cyclists...

Where is the link? Interesting how people will cling to one thing and be stubborn to new info, or even old info applied now. Triathletes are a stubborn bunch.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
When your first URL starts with "http://www.bicycling.com/beginners" I almost didn't read the second link. Good thing I did, as it backs up what I was saying! Maybe you should have read more carefullier (that word is a joke, by the way).

"Well, it’s consistent with the idea that you shouldn’t worry too much about trying to generate power on the upstroke, since that’s a hopeless task."

It also made me chuckle that my science-based views are proof of triathletes being bad cyclists, since I actually do not race triathlon, I raced Expert MTB as a teen and now am Cat 3 on the road, with some upgrade points toward my 2 upgrade.

-Physiojoe

---

-Physiojoe
Instagram: @thephysiojoe
Cycling coach, Elite racer on Wooster Bikewerks p/b Wootown Bagels

I think you found your calling with physiology as reading comprehension is not your strong suit, and I quote:
Conclusion#1
While the study shows there may not be a pedaling ideal, the research doesn't mean you should forget about your form and start mashing away. Working on establishing a smooth and comfortable pedal stroke will still improve your speed by optimizing the muscle coordination, Hug found in his study. If you want to start developing your stroke or just refine it a bit, check out our ideal pedal stroke developed by cycling biomechanics experts.

Conclusion #2 Well, it�s consistent with the idea that you shouldn�t worry too much about trying to generate power on the upstroke, since that�s a hopeless task. Instead, focus on keeping the whole cycle smooth, not letting power dip too far at the top and bottom.



From the third, well riders such as Davis Phinney have ridden fixed gear in the off-season for a better, smoother pedal stroke. Just a great training tool.

Again, provide me links if I am wrong. (crickets...)

Also, I am interested in any articles that say strength training is bad for triathletes. That is new to me, but I am open minded enough to be enlightened.







[/quote][/quote][/quote]

When your first URL starts with "http://www.bicycling.com/beginners" I almost didn't read the second link. Good thing I did, as it backs up what I was saying! Maybe you should have read more carefullier (that word is a joke, by the way).

"Well, it’s consistent with the idea that you shouldn’t worry too much about trying to generate power on the upstroke, since that’s a hopeless task."

It also made me chuckle that my science-based views are proof of triathletes being bad cyclists, since I actually do not race triathlon, I raced Expert MTB as a teen and now am Cat 3 on the road, with some upgrade points toward my 2 upgrade.

-Physiojoe[/quote]

I don't know about CFE and mashing and whatever. What I do know is y'all need to learn to use the quote and reply features properly. This is getting worse than a Frank Day post here, what with the bolding and the underlining.

right now doing traditional WODs and will change to CFE WODs early April... so far much stronger with peak power:)

Thanks for contributing something worthwile (and do the point of the OP)...keep us posted how your season is! I am a CrossFitt'er turned triathlete. Raced the past 2 seasons, with my first Half-IM last spring. Strictly CF at this point, will switch to CF/CFE at some point (depending on what happens with our affiliate team, etc).

Which I draw the conclusion that you have a power meter? If so how has the FTP improved? ( Given that peak power for a triathlete is about as useful as increasing your 1RM on the bench press.)

What we have in this thread... is a failure... to communicate.

I agree with the CFers. And I feel compelled to say, all age-group athletes in the 20-29 age bracket must train with CFE. I repeat, all age-group triathletes in the 20-29 age range should add CFE to their training starting yesterday. Especially those racing in the Pacific NW.

---

-------
http://www.y-rocket.blogspot.com/

lol.. plus a lot of failed quoted responses up there.. I saw many a[/quote] ... oops?

I just want to know how he is a "Pro" when he runs a 42:30 10k, rides a 1:18 40k and follows it up with a blazing 22:30 5k at 2008 Duathlon Nationals in the age group category. 11th/24 in his AG also
I was a 2:00-2:10 Oly guy last year depending on course and i would NEVER classify myself as a pro.
This guy is a MOP age grouper.

Sorry to go OT, but those times surprise me. Was it a tough course (or much older AG)? Surprised that those times would get MOP.

Here is the study title: Coyle, E.F., et al. Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 23(1):93-107, January 1991.


The really interesting thing is how fast most triathletes will leap to some new idea, especially if it's shown to work. What's amusing is how so many Xfitters just drink the Kool Aid based on what they think they know.

Classic quote by Brett Sutton-'Kieran Perkins wa so weak he couldn't carry his own swim bag'.
He is obviously not a believer

This discussion is like chinese finger cuffs, the more you fight the less room you have. I said Triathletes are stubburn and cling to traditional views and are afraid to look at new information or methods, you then trot out a 20 year old study of questionable value based on a number of factors authored and conducted by a researcher who is professionally tainted by other studies and known to have doctored (or at the least erred ) data in his work. If that is your benchmark, then this discusion proves my point exactly. Eyes closed, ears plugged, marching forward.

This pedalling tangent was just an example of the stubborn triathlete and I appreciate you helping to make my point. Apply that to the integration of a CFE workout (or anything else outside of the tri norm) and any intellectually honest person would admit that triathletes are resistant to change. I don't see this as a problem for them because I am glad their programs work for them, but I am confused why they not only disagree, but seem to take offense at anything new. It is just a dumb thing to feel vested in.

Secondly, the argument that strength training is bad for triathletes is just not sound. Cite or quote a study that says this? I can understand why somebody would disagree with CFE being appropriate, but it seems that many are against strength training as a whole...just not smart.

CFE is an experiment for me, I am not sold on it but it makes enough sense and jives with my goals that it is worth a shot. If it doesn't mesh with your goals and pushes your comfort zone, then don't do it, but why get so entrenched about it?

I have been doing it for a month consistently. I had a strong base (strength and aerobic) going in to the process, so I hit the ground running. Pull ups, push ups, Kettle bell cleans, snatches, swings, box jumps, medicine ball work, jump rope, multiple core exercises etc...all great and functional strength training exercises, they are also incorporated into CFE.

Whether it is called CFE or not, incorporating strength training and core workouts into your routine should be a must. I can't see how it would hinder you, it might even make you great triathletes better.

Precisely! To me, this article (the one that started the thread) does more to discredit CF/CFE. Once you look at the facts, it just does not add up. As always, if your product is solid, you do not need to fluff the evidence, it stands on its own (see Infinit).

Based on some of the links throughout this topic, there are some legit Agr's using CF/CFE with good results (not world class results but good). I'd rather use those as my metrics on the system than the nonsensical Triathlete Mag. piece (Triathlete should be ashamed of its journalistic quality on that piece- and yes I understand it is a Tri magazine but it is still a legit publication and should adhear to minimum journalistic standards).

I'm sure you're only looking for things to back up your argument, but if you spent half that time using the search function, there are several recent threads here discussing strength training, with several, if not dozens, of studies quoted.

I would look them up for you but I am at work. I'm sure you know how to use the search box. The majority have a control group, with another group that does their training + strength training. The strength training group never shows much improvement, if at all. You say "triathletes are stubborn," well, I encourage you to actually read these studies and not be stubborn yourself.

There was even a study, I believe quoted earlier in this thread, that showed the group that used strength training couldn't even put out more power for 1 kilometer at the end of a 20 minute effort! This is the type of thing most CFE'rs would expect to be improved. The study showed it actually was worse after a period of strength training. Looks like strength can't even be applied to the sprint distance.

-Physiojoe

---

-Physiojoe
Instagram: @thephysiojoe
Cycling coach, Elite racer on Wooster Bikewerks p/b Wootown Bagels

There was one study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826297) which dealt strictly with time trialists and it was only over a six week period. A) triathletes have great physical demands for all around fitness than time trialists. B) a 6 week program is not enough to gauge the validity of strength training. What the study showed was the periodization was not an effecti strength training method for that study length, which is different then saying all strength training is not applicable.

I am open minded, that is why I ask for you to cite you source. I will read what you link to. I have googled in numerous fasion and all the links offer advice and methods of strength training for triathletes. I did not find one where they were against it. If you say strength training is bad, then prove it, the oneous is on you as your opinion is the outlier.

Once you can validate YOUR opinion as informed regarding strength training and cite it, only then can we discuss whether CFE is a valid means of strength trainings. Until then, it is like explaining sailing to somebody who doesn't understand the concept of wind.

You miss something in your criticism: the length of the training has nothing to do with it. The RT group got stronger (" but the RT group showed a significantly greater increase in 1RM squat strength compared with CON (p < 0.05)"), yet didn't get faster. What other change would you expect strength training to do, besides make one stronger? Again: stronger did not lead to faster.

As for "the oneous is on you as your opinion is the outlier" (first, it is "onus"): as endurance swimming, biking and running are not strength limited, the onus is on you and others who claim that increasing strength will increase endurance, to show why strength training is [more] effective than S/B/R training. So, it is incumbent upon you to show that strength training is more effective. You have not done so. You need to find some peer-reviewed research that shows the benefits of strength training towards endurance performance.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Well said Ken. Now, if he was doing 1/2/3 races in Ohio or the midwest, I'd let him strength train all he wanted! But, I'm not a triathlete, so I might as well try to help someone I will never race against :)

-Physiojoe

---

-Physiojoe
Instagram: @thephysiojoe
Cycling coach, Elite racer on Wooster Bikewerks p/b Wootown Bagels

You're just wrong, wrong, wrong. Triathletes have typically leapt at new ideas willy nilly, adopting everything and anything in the hope that it might make them faster. Some ideas have, some haven't - aerobars, beam bikes, non-traditional frame geometry, non-KOPS saddle position, Newton shoes, heart rate monitors, power meters, compression socks, 650C wheelsets, non-double diamond frames, and the list of innovations embraced by triathletes goes on and on.

CFE is just the latest flavor of the month when it comes to "new ideas". Speaking of being resistant to new ideas, the idea that a rounder pedal stroke is somehow superior is one that has long existed in cycling lore. Most cyclists I know, and I've been doing this a long time, still cling to the belief that a round stroke is superior. Actual research has not shown that rounder is better, but you *think* it is and anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.

Of course you didn't criticize the study in question.

Folks have posted links to studies that show no advantage to strength training. That is not a traditional view, at least when it comes to cycling. During my collegiate days, we lifted in the off season and into the early season. It's modern research that has shown the lack of benefit to cycling from strength training.


Did someone make the argument that strength training is "bad" or are you just building a strawman to argue against. Most here are not against strength training; they don't believe that strength training makes you faster and in that belief they are backed by the preponderance of published research.

I think that Crossfit is a great tool for general fitness. Triathlon/cycling isn't the be-all and end-all of fitness, but if you want to get faster at tri/cycling, the preponderance of published research doesn't show strength training to be a particular benefit. If one understands the different adaptation that come from strength and endurance training, the reasons why are pretty obvious.

I don't have anything against Crossfit per se', nor do most of the folks here. It's just when the zealots roll in and bleat and bloviate about how CFE is more effective than properly periodized and structured endurance training at making someone faster.

Some of you boys need to try and find a site called Fasttwitch.com, where you might find more like-minded strength training types. Here we are more concerned with endurance and recruiting as many slow twitch muscles as possible - those that can work all day, doing the same thing 10,000, 20,000 times in a row without tiring, not 20 reps.

Have a look at the muscles on Bekele or Gebreselaise ... A runner doesn't want strong muscles slowing him down. Have a look at the muscles on anyone in the pro peleton... A big guy is 70kg. Have a look at the scrawny kids that come through the swimming ranks every year, blitzing everybody. Too much strength will just add unnecessary baggage to cart around

I quoted Brett Sutton earlier... One of the most successful tri coaches in the world currently and a former national swim coach. He hates the gym. Laughs at coaches that apply the minimal rep workout as it has nothing to do with what you do on race day.
Forget the studies, this is 20 years of experience talking.
Listen to IMTalk podcast from about 1 month ago if u are interested

Since when do the pros drive what we do, especially since most of us are age groupers and not pros? I am a 6'2" 225# clyde who has gotten second in my age group once, not bad for a big fella, but I have no misgivings that I am going to be that 70kg anytime soon. Why should I pretend I will be and train like it? I am uniformed regarding what will help their skrawny arses, but for us normal guys, us big fellas, I need some strength to lug my ass around a course. That is where strength training comes in handy. It seems to be a false platform when us 95%ers want to make decisions and train like we are the 5%ers. It like softball players training like Big Leagers, or rec league Basketball players training like an NBA forward. Just not reasonable.

It is great you can discern what is good for ALL triathletes ALL the time. Your absolutes are ignorant.

Rugby

stop wasting your bandwidth these guys are right If you want to be fast at tris it is best to be an anorexic narcissist no weights no nothing but s/b/r


However, if you want to be a better athlete who does tris , who can lift his kid over his head, who can have a push up contest with his teenage son, who can scare the shit out of his teenage daughters boyfriend by clean and jerking 170lbs or flipping a truck tire over a few times (the best is actually getting a keg overhead and throwing it a few times, it actually decreases the little bastards testosterone) then CF is for you

and who gives a shit what some internet board denziens think Is CFE/CF fun? then have at it

Perhaps you have my responses in your Slowtwitch killfile, but I'll try again.

Nothing in triathlon is strength-limited. Not swimming, not biking, not running. You don't need strength to lug your ass around a course, you need endurance. You are already stronger than Lance Armstrong on the bike, and you are stronger than any world-class marathoner on the run. The difference between you and Lance (besides a bunch of obvious things) is that he can maintain his modest power output for a whole lot longer than can you. And the reason he can is that his aerobic engine is better than yours. And the reason it is better than yours (genetics aside) is that he trained his ass off doing lots and lots of aerobic work. He used to be able to hold north of, maybe, 30% of his max power for an hour. I'm guessing you can't do half that (say, 15% of your max power). Maybe you think that you can double your max power (through strength training) and hold that 15% and you can ride like Lance, but you'd be thinking wrong. If you thought that if you increase the percentage of your max power you can hold (through endurance training) to closer to 30% then you can ride like Lance, then you'd be thinking right. Of course, doing that will likely reduce your max power, but amazingly you'd be much faster. Go figure.

The same applies to running, of course, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. (Hint: you take maybe 5,000 steps with each leg in a 10km running race. What percentage of your max one rep single leg press do you think you could do for 10,000 reps? And what effect will increasing your max one rep single leg press have?).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

What the hell is so hard for you to understand?

If the goal is to become the fastest you possibly can at triathlon...then run/bike/swim/repeat and DROP the lifting nonsense.

If the goal is to be generally fit and enjoy a bit of competition and social aspect of triathlon but not worry about maximum capability, then lift to your heart's content. That's fine and laudable if for nothing else than you are not joining the legion of couch potato fat-ass middle-aged slugs out there. Just don't come here blathering on and on about strength and lifting making you better at triathlon. Most of the other 95%ers on here aren't on board with you. They are trying to become faster triathletes. It has nothing to do with what % of the field you are actually finishing in or whether we're pros or not.

Or, if you want to be a faster triathlete who is still in great shape, train at S/B/R and do all sorts of s*** around the house, like yard work, home repair (see what laying 1000sq ft of unfaced batt insulation in an attic does for your abs), playing with the kids, and everything else that comprises "living."

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

"who can scare the shit out of his teenage daughters boyfriend by clean and jerking 170lbs"

I find cleaning my rifle while sitting in a chair below my Marine Corps Officer's sword and medals works far better than that to scare the crap out of the little buggers, without having to strain myself. Work smarter, not harder! ;-)

getting up to a 170 clean and jerk was probably easier than OCS and 4 yrs in the corp!

I was an enlisted interpreter in the AF and that doesnt scare anyone ;-)

Likely the difference between strength training and lifting is not apparent. Pull ups and push ups are strength training and are very useful, nobody said lifting. As a Marine, you should know the difference.

It is this all or nothing mentality, it is just foolish. You either SBR, or you don't...just not well though out. I have read other tri blogs and forums that give just the opposite advice.

I tend to disagree just on prima facie evidence. Frank Day's hung on selling $1000 training devices that don't work to triathletes, look at compression socks--they've been embraced by triathletes well before runners or anyone else. Triathletes are always looking for the latest the greatest. It's part of the culture. Perhaps sometimes to too great a degree, we get swept up in whatever's new, sometimes throwing piles of money down on something that just doesn't work.

What's the difference between pull-ups (what you call "strength training") and lat pull downs ("lifting")? Aren't both of them exercising the same muscles, more or less, in the same fashion, more or less? And both of them serve to increase max single rep performance, not endurance (unless you are doing several hundred reps at one rep per second or something).

Of course, I'm not a Marine, so maybe I just can't understand. Please explain for us anorexic triathletes.

If you live anywhere near New Jersey, I'll put my 52 year old anorexic 175 pounds up against your Clydesdale 225 pounds in a strength training/lifting challenge of my choice. :-)

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

"Pull ups and push ups are strength training and are very useful"

Sure they are. They were useful for training to do things like pull myself up a cargo net with 150lbs of combat gear on my back. Useful for SBR? Not so much. MAYBE better than not doing anything at all, but not nearly as useful as actually SBR for making me a faster triathlete.

I should add that the corrollary to what the rest of us are saying here is that doing pullups to train to drag my ass up the cargo net as fast as possible is not nearly as good as actually strapping 150lbs of gear on and doing it over and over and over.

I am not a parent, so I wouldn't know, but between spending time with my kids or spending time in a gym training so that I can pick them up above my head... I would pick spending time with them.

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

if you had kids id bet they would rather you be out on a long ride ;-)

Excellent post.

---

-------
http://www.y-rocket.blogspot.com/

As a result of all this S/B/R versus weight training discussion, I added 3 S/B/R days to my training routine. And I'll be smoked, I PR'd my snatch and clean and jerk as a result. All that extra swimming, biking, and running made me stronger. Now I'm really confused.

Have a good season everyone. :)

---

Ryan Hunt
Owner - CrossFit Monrovia
http://www.crossfitmonrovia.com

I wonder, do Crossfitters also proselytize on power lifting and body building forums or are cycling and tri groups the only fortunate ones?

Why not runners, while we're at it. Oh, and bowling. If ever there were a bunch of folks in need of some general fitness, it has got to be pro bowlers!

As a result of no one providing any CFE based scientific studies AND the fact that no Pros/Elite Amateurs use CFE I've not done a single CFE workout and have posted new PR's on the run and bike. The lack of CFE workouts have made me better. I'm not confused.

Most training programs aren't specific enough to show undeniable improvement. I am posting a multi part series on weight training for cyclists. Check it out and try it out if you like. allanrego.blogspot.com

Since when is 95% 100%?