Ironman on nothing but CrossFit and CrossFit Endurance (Page 3)

I came across this: http://crossfitironman.com/the-experiment/ a while back and started following it to see where it would lead. . .  2 guys and a girl training up for IMLP on nothing but CF and CFE.  We were tracking a couple friends who were also competing and I remembered their blog.  I won't comment, but just list the results.

Results: 

1

The gym where I teach has gotten the CrossFit bug in the last year.  What I've seen of it is LOTS of injury.  They do a their own version of the CrossFit games with a coaching program to go along with it.  Last year during the games roughly 30% dropped out of the competition with injury.  And this isn't Joe's Gym here, it's one of the biggest and best chain gyms in the country.

I'm all about cross training but so far I'm not sold on this, it seems like more wear and tear on the joints unnecessarily.

I'll comment.  I did my first IM in 12:43.  I'm a chubby golf pro.  I did nothing but s/b/r in preparation.  A lot of volume /\in Z2.  A dash of Z4.  That is all.

Crossfit is awesome if you want to look good.  s/b/r is awesome if you want to do an IM.

As interesting as these examples are, there isn't even enough data to understand these individual scenarios, let alone trying to apply a broader conclusion to them.  A sample size of n=1 or even n=4 just isn't going to teach us much.

Mike--first off congrat's on a 12:43 IM, that's not bad at all.  However, being a "chubby golf pro" tells us nothing more than your career and current body composition.  You may have the genetic potential of Lance Armstrong in which case you're seriously underachieving.    I have a buddy that is a sub 3 hour marathoner, and put in a ton of tri training to cross the line in 13:30, so clearly his experience was different than yours.

Just because something works for one person does not make it applicable to anyone else or even a good idea.  My favorite example is the 1904 Olympic marathon bronze medalist:  he ran the race in cowboy boots.  It worked out for him, but I'm guessing for many of us even trying that would result in permanent disability.

Secondly, you achieved your results on "a lot of volume".  For many people that both decreases the feasibility of it (because they don't want to take the time away from family or work obligations or whatever) and increases the risk of injury.  Look at the injury rates for runners.  Here's an example to get you started:

One of the primary objectives of CFE is to enable people to get to the finish line without the same time commitment you see in standard training protocols.  Again, I'm not necessarily a big CFE believer, but with some tweaks I believe it absolutely can achieve that goal.

Ha!  That's why CF gyms have all those mirrors in them, right?  Oh wait--they don't have any; it's all the other gyms that do.  Looking good is often a nice by-product of CF but has no bearing on its training methodologies.

Well, first of all many gyms are trying to implement CF style training but have no clue what they are doing.  "CrossFit-like" and CrossFit are not the same thing.

But that being said, CrossFit gyms are a lot like car mechanics.  Many of them are reasonably okay, some are particularly good or particularly bad, a few are outstanding and a few at the other end of the spectrum you literally risk life and limb.  Just because it says CrossFit on the door does not make it trustworthy.  If you're at all interested in CrossFit, you need to shop around a bit.  Here's some true example to pick the good from the bad (and yes, the bad will have a high injury ratio).

Example 1

Bad:

Trainer (and I use that word VERY loosely here):  "Today we're doing heavy deadlifts.  Ready?"
New client:  "Wait!  What's a deadlift"?
Trainer:  "Oh, it's easy.  Just pick it up off the floor.  You can warm-up by starting with your bodyweight on the bar."

Good:

Trainer:  "Today we'll be doing deadlifts.  I know most of you have done this before, but everyone grab a piece of PVC pipe and we'll break down the mechanics of the movement step-by-step.  Once we've done that, do a few warm-ups with just the bar and I'll help you establish a proper load from there."

Example 2

Bad:

Trainer: "Today's warmup is 3 rounds for time of 400M run, 20 pull-ups, and 15 kettlebell swings at 70 lbs.  3-2-1 go!"

Good:

Trainer: "Today's warmup:  We'll start with an easy 400M run to get the blood flowing, then do a few light kettlebell swings to warm-up the posterior chain.  After that we're going to spend a few minutes working on hip mobility, followed by some shoulder flexibility specifically focusing on external rotation.  Then a few more light lifts/movements and we'll be ready to go."

A general rule of thumb:  if you go to the box (gym) for a WOD (workout of the day) and the "trainer" throws you in there Rx (as prescribed)...then run away fast.  They have no idea what your work capacity is and the quality of your movement (i.e. flexibility, balance, etc.) and are just asking to hurt you.  Many boxes have a required fundamentals program to get thru this stuff, but even if they want to let you just jump in there, they should at a minimum be limiting the weight you use and/or the number of reps you do until they have a very good clue as to what your capabilities are.

Sorry, one last point that I forgot in my post above:

CrossFit teaches that to properly train an individual on a particular movement you go thru a 3 step progression:

1. Mechanics
2. Consistency
3. Intensity

In other words, first learn how to do a movement right.  Then be able to do it correctly on a repeated basis.  Then, and only then, do you increase the speed and weight with which it is done.  Obviously this is ignored by some trainers, but that is NOT the fault of CrossFit, it is the fault of the individual trainer or box and their deviation from foundational CrossFit principles.

As we all learned from Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility."  Some of the most effective lifts (and training tools in general) have to be handled correctly, because they also come with the greatest risk for things to go bad when done improperly.

@Pancakeman: 

Point 1.  It is N=3, but unfortunately coming across results for CFE experiments isn't easy.  Some blogs go away when results aren't in their favor.  However, if they'd all knocked out sub 12's CFE proponents would be shouting it from the rooftops as definitive proof of the new shortcut.

Point 2.  Am I reading that summary right?  The study showed the distance folks get injured at 1/2 the rate of the higher intensity, middle and short distance folks?  Wouldn't that be a strike against CF/CFE?

Point 3.  With regard to there being good and bad boxes:  Is that why CF does the licensing deal with affiliates rather than a franchise?  Is HQ trying to escape liability for trainers that they pump out and the affiliates they put their name on? 

As a casual observer... there have been so many programs, so many "systems" that were the latest greatest over the years. Most "fitness" programs are preached by testosterone muscle heads that their way is the only true way and nobody else can do what they do. Sure, a pretty broad stereotype, but true as well. They all fall out of favor as soon as their claims can't be substantiated....

Obviously, over time we have learned the benifits of this system and that sytem and have learned why it is they work, or why they work for a particular individual with a particulat problem. But the fact remains... every "system" promises more returns, with les work, or less time... and the only thing they really claim is that they have found the "magic shortcut".... there is no magic short cut.

I could do a IM with CFE... I could do it without. It would not be pretty, but I could do it... but "doing it" is not the same as doing it "well". What irritates me about CF isn't the young arogant muscle head Cf'er that belives he is the best athlete on the planet making out landish claims... it is actually the founder of CF that makes those outlandish claims.... that a Cf'er is stronger than a proffessional powerlifter, and has more endurance that a proffesional endurance athlete... pretty much no reason to keep listening at that point. I actually think CF is cool as something new and the WOD is a inovative way to stay connected and plugged in. Competitions are always cool... so as a fitness program it has some good stuff going for it.... but as usuall... the hype will fade and it will be left at what it is... a workout program fundamentally no different than anyother and no magic shortcut.

I was throwing pga_bob in there for N=4.    But you are absolutely correct, trying to find good data on CFE Ironmans is pretty tough.  And that's one of my gripes with CFE: CrossFit proper was founded as a "results based" training methodology--if the results show that it works, use it and let the scientists figure out the "why" later.  If something ccomes along that works, better,  incorporate it.  I have never seen the results from CFE to indicate that it particularly works.

Haha!  You are correct.  That's what I get for muddling answers to a couple different issues into a single train of thought.  In general I was trying to point out that runners get hurt--a lot--in response to a "CrossFit causes injuries" comment.  Most studies that I've come across (I'm too lazy to look up any right now) show that distance is the real enemy for "most" runners.  But I suspect the difference is that "most" does not include sprinters and middle distance runners, because beyond college those are very hard to find.  I could speculate the reasons for the results found in the study that I mentioned, but the easiest of these is what I just said--most "runners" are distance runners from 5k to marathon.  This particular study started with only 60 runners total, which is already a small sample size, and by the time you split them into categories, you're even more limited.  I also suspect that most adult sprinters and middle distance runners tend to get injured due to a higher susceptibility to muscle imbalance injuries than younger runners.

That is certainly a reasonable hypothesis, but I would not presume to understand what drives Coach Glassman to run his business the way he does.  Some affiliate owners have asked to have a higher standard for affiliation due to "weakening the brand" found when people go to poorly run affiliates and have anbad experience, but this idea has not been acted on (so far.)

I guess I disagree.  I consider myself a less than causal observer as I have a degree in exercise physiology and have been actively involved in the "fitness industry" for over 25 years.  Yes, there are a million different fads from zoomba to shake-weight to sweatin' with the oldies to whatever happens to be in "Muscle & Fitness" magazine.  The difference with CrossFit is that it DOES work.  If you want to lump me in with the "testosterone muscle heads" I guess you can, but most would consider a 160 lbs, 6'2" competitive triathlete that (when I was at those dimensions) couldn't do 10 pushups or a single pullup to probably not be a musclehead.

That is one of the challenges of the CrossFit games--if you have a system that works better, show up and prove it by going home $250,000 richer.  So far I'm not aware of anyone even making it to a CrossFit regionals competition from a non-CF background.

Not sure what the magic shortcut you're referring to is.  Maybe CFE?  If so, I would sort of agree with you.  As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, IMHO they do NOT do sufficient distance for an Ironman or other ultra distance event.  But I also think that standard methodologies do too much distance and have many other inherent weaknesses/gaps.  CrossFit, on the other hand (as opposed to CFE), truly is revolutionizing the world of exercise.  I've been watching the Olympics this week and grin every time one of the athletes mentions (and it's been a lot) that they've been "flipping tires" or "using kettlebells".  But the truth is, both of those movements have been around forever--it is the effective incorporation of those into a CrossFit program that is producing results that has led to their increased popularity.  There is nothing special about tire flipping or kettlebells in and of themselves, but used appropriately in a broader context they are great tools.

Coach Glassman is indeed a bit "over-enthusiastic" sometimes in how he expresses himself, and yes he has even over estimated the potential of a stand-alone CF program. But I've never heard him make the claims you mention.  As a side note, he did not start CFE (although they do work together.)  And most of my comments are in defense of CrossFit itself, not the CFE program.  Very few people, even in the CF community, believe that doing CF alone is going to make you excel in another sport without also training in that sport.  CF should be used as a strength and conditioning program as a foundation to sport practice and training, not as a replacement.  If you want to be a football player, you have to do football stuff.  If you want to be a triathlete you have to swim, bike and run.  However, I am absolutely sure that doing that sport specific work on top of a CF base can make you succeed moreso than you would without.

Again you mention the "magic shortcut".  CrossFit is far from being a shortcut.  If you've ever been to a box, those athletes work incredibly hard.  This isn't a "sit on the couch and watch TV while this electrical system stimulates your ab muscles" activity.  This is get under a <hopefully> skilled trainer with other people that are committed to improving their physical health and bust your butt day in and day out to make it happen.  Not sure how that's a shortcut.

I speak in aggregations to get my point across. The thing about stereotypes is that they are generally true, but not for 100% of "them". I discovered CF on this site and then got interested and looked into it. Lot's of info out there... and more than a fair share of those "types" that are all testosterone and "extreme" since that is so en vogue these days talking about how much they have puked which is of course a direct result of being more "extreme" than anyone else. I have no doubt you are not one of "those", (not that there is anything wrong with that) but you get my point, they are not hard to find, and they seem to be particularly drawn to CF.

... and even what is kettlebells and tires... macro movements engaging large group muscles... over doing specific isolated excersizes... but that trend is the same in circuit training and other programs that do similar style work.

Again.. after looking into it and reading interviews and articles about CF, Glassman says it himself. It would not be proper to attribute every "stereotype" to a program, but when it comes from the founder... well. I don't mean to say you can do no work and get all the results... but from what I saw, you can beat any power lifter that trains tons of hours, or be good at IM with minimal training... and this was not talking about CFE, but CF and what it could do for cyclists and runners. Not trying to lump CF into those silly "8 sec. Abs" programs, but you can excel in specialized sports without specialized amounts of training is pretty much a "magic short cut".

Unfortunately, when general info like Glassman has put out from the founder... then those types that respond to such practice are drawn to the program. While you sound like a reasonable person and a good ambassador for CF, there remains a large population of people that are doing CF that... well... not so much. So just a s some guy that thinks CF looks interesting and looks into it, I find a vast sea of exaggerated claims and that same attitude that has been in all the "fad" programs.

I should not come off so critical. I can totally see lots a benefits from CF and think it is a very interesting program. I certainly see the results for those that dive in and put the hard work in. I explained what I meant by "short cut" above.

I got a bad taste in my mouth after looking into it, and the "propaganda" was pretty over the top. But like you have been saying as a general fitness program I have no doubt about it's effectiveness... but then again other programs are plenty effective for those that dedicate themselves to those programs. And you have fully explained what is needed to be a good triathlete which is S/B/R... there are obviously going to be those that believe more S/B/R will be better time spent to become good at S/B/R... than also spending precious time and energy doing other things as well. When all the hoopla is over, it may very well come to pass that indeed "other" general fitness work is very beneficial... especially to the non professional AGers than just SBR... but right now SBR has decades of success behind it at getting people good at SBR.

Yes and no.  No doubt, there are those people.  And I'm sure in certain areas they are more prolific than not.  There is definitely a reason some people refer to CF as a cult as it does have many positive "addictive" qualities.  Add to that the number of people that have a life changing experience, and you get serious fanatacism.  Having "Pukie the Clown" and "Uncle Rhabdo" (short for rhabdomyolysis which among other things can simply be caused by "overdoing it") as unofficial mascots certainly goes to support your point.

However, the majority of people training at boxes are pretty diverse.  I've trained at a dozen or so different CF boxes, and beside the few requisite muscleheads, you get overweight soccer moms and retirees and golf coaches and firemen and pastors and insurance salesmen and every other slice of population.  And the reason they're all their is that...well, I think there are quite a few psychological and social factors playing in as well as the physiological benefits, but in general it just works.

I have to agree with you here.  Add in the new partnership with Reebok that adds a whole new marketing bent to it, and it definitely gets a fad feeling to it.  In fact when my sister first tried to introduce me to CF I pushed her off for 6 months chalking it up as a fad.  But once I finally started digging in I found some pretty amazing stuff (sometimes hidden beneath the surface machismo and kool-aid drinking obsessions.)

Sorry to hear that CF left a bad taste in your mouth, but I can certainly understand how that happened.  People get VERY into it, especially when they've had a life changing experience (such as my sister's loss of over 100 lbs.)  My poor brother has just about sworn off family get-togethers because he doesn't want to hear about CF for hours on end.

But that being said, let me give you an example of one of the athletes that I trained for awhile to put this back towards a S/B/R context.  Remember the sub-3 hour marathoner I mentioned.  Well he kinda burned himself out with his IM training and the following summer started CF training with us.  He had been training for about 6 weeks when one weekend he finally went out for a run.  He did about a 7-miler and here was his take on it: "I couldn't believe how good my splits were since I haven't really been running in months and I felt great the whole time.  Plus I wasn't at all sore which I thought for sure I would be."  Before I continue this story, let me say that this is far from an isolated incident and I would say is almost typical for someone that has an extensive background in their sport of choice.  And his take away from the run?  "I really like to run and it felt so good and so fast that I'm going to quit CF and focus on my running again."  I think he kinda failed to connect the dots. 

I would never suggest to such an athlete to give up training runs, because obviously that's his love.  But balancing his running (for training and for the pleasure it brings him) with the benefits of a CF program can mean an even higher level of performance on the same or likely even less total training volume.  In addition, most decent strength programs, CF or otherwise, add an injury reduction component by strengthening joints and helping to avoid muscle imbalances.

One other quick example is a high school high-jumper trained by a friend of mine.  Like cyclists and runners, weight is an enemy for high jumpers.  His track coach was very concerned that CF would bulk him up with muscles and ruin his high jumping.  Long story short, he did put on 10 lbs of muscle.  But in the process also added 6 inches to his high jump was the national champion.  Obviously the old school/traditional wisdom did not work here.

Not sure if it's an option where you live, but since you have (or at least did have) an interest, I'd recommended trying to find a few other CF boxes to see if you can find one without the masochism and the "CF is should be the only sport allowed on the planet" attitude, because there are plenty of them out there.

My parting thought that I like to share with those over-the-top folks:  "There's no known training benefit to puking." 

*Sigh*  I thought about answering this before anyone even brought it up, but get tired of trying to bypass every argument before it happens.  Every time CF comes up, people will say things something like "there's nothing new here--has been around forever" or "there are better options out there."  Yes, the movements have been around forever, but if there are better options out there for general physical preparedness then they should be able to prove themselves at the games which use all these things that aren't unique.  The Games this year had movement such as swimming, biking, running, pullups, cleans, jump rope, sled pushing and rope climbing--nothing that doesn't also exist outside of CrossFit.  If someone is "fit" they out to be able to do all these things reasonably well.

In summary, people say there's nothing unique about CF, but when asked to compete they whine that CF is specialization.  You can't have it both ways.

Actually, what CF says is that their specialty is not specializing.  Take a 4 event, 5 person competition: weightlifting, 400M run, gymnastics rings muscle-ups, and a marathon; the athletes are specialists in those events plus a CrossFitter.  The CF athlete will lose to the specialist in each of these events, but would likely finish a strong 2nd well ahead of the other 3 athletes (with the one risk area for a 3rd place being the 2 running events as the specialists are still runners).  It shouldn't take a lot of imaginative powers to get a chuckle out of envisioning the marathon runner in a weight lifting competition or the weightlifter running a marathon.

But if you want to be good at a specific sport you have to train that sport, and I've never heard CF central say any different.  Yes, there are the local overzealous trainers who espouse that, but it's not the party line.

Although I've never heard Coach say that, it is indeed one of the mantra's of CFE.  And I'm with you--I think they're somewhat nuts.  However, most athletes are not Macca or Crowe, and can get a lot of benefit out of a CF base.  As a side note, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Crowe attributed his 2011 win to more time in the weight room, but unfortunately I can't find it now.

If you're serious about that statement, drop me a private message and we can discuss.  I agree about the lack of evidence and have pointed out in earlier posts what I believe to be the major flaws in their methodology.  However, "endurance events" actually include sprint tri's and 10k's, not just Ironman distance events.  And in my experience it does not take much (some, but not a ton) of sport specific training for CF athletes to excel at shorter endurance events.

Well triathletes get consumed too. Triathlon can change lives. My friends whole family changed all their lives running. CF can change lives... but your sister's 100lb loss, which is awesome, could have been achieved comitting to any number of "programs". When people change what they are doing in their lives... their lives tend to change. That is not saying CF is not a good program... but it is not "the only" good program, and is debateable it is the "best" program.

So a burnt out life time runner took a break for 6 weeks and felt better when returning... again, not Earth shattering news there. Countless athletes get burnt out, take time off, do something different, and come back rejuvinated or better. He could have just lifted weights, got into rock climbing, taken up yoga... and probably would have had the same results... maybe... but maybe, just for him, there were issues that CF addressed and gave him better results than something else.... but to take that example and turn it into... if a runner did less running and more CF he would be a better runner.... that is a HUGE stretch.... from the one example of a burnt out runner taking some time off. I realize you said there were others... but the Devil is in the details.

And again... when one takes a stand on one side of a subject... things get twisted into a for/against.... I'm not saying I'm against, but just some of the "fors" are a little hard to swallow, and some of the claims just don't seem to pass the sniff test let alone serious scientific scrutiny. It does not mean CF is "no good"... just not the "miracle" it is claimed to be.

Plenty of endurance athletes do champion doing other things besides endurance training... weight training, yoga, cross training... as a way to suplement training and address specific issues or as a more "wholeistic" approach to improved performance. So that is not exactly new and there is some evidence to support that... But again... it seems that "if you CF more and train less you will get better at what you were training for"... huummmm. Even all the proponents of cross training never say train less... just add these pieces.... and most of those people say "add those pieces off season"... but then get back to training.

Well,  I'll be doing IMWI with just CFE training in a few weeks... Follow me: BIB #1422.  Let's see what happens !   Here is my training blog:

http://ironmandre.blogspot.com/

cheers !

Questions?

So what is your goal, compete or complete?

How did you train for IMFL?  Unless it was CFE, then you are not doing an IM on 'just' CFE.

So then what it is you are trying to show by being a FOP IM athlete doing one now on "stricktly" CF/CFE?

I just wanted to interject what I considering to a couple of big picture points. First off, I get the fact that traditionalists are defensive regarding they way you have been training. After all you have put in countless hours to get to where you are at. Does countless hours on the road in the pool work? Yes it does. However those that are staunchly stuck in the traditional way and feel that is the only way to train, I say what you are failing to recognize is the thousands of people are getting off their couches and getting into Triathlons (or marathons or Olympic lifting or Kung Fu or &hellip, because of crossfit. I just signed up for Ironman Lake Placid 2013 - having only done crossfit for less than 2 years with no consistent or traditional base training prior to speak. I also plan on following mostly CFE to get me there. Ask me 2 years ago if I would be willing to put in hours upon hours of training time so that I could an IM, i'd say no way not interested. My first tri, a sprint, was last fall. I've since done several including a half ironman – finishing in 5:52 - doing only CFE training. Competitive? Nope. 342 out of 878 however is not too shabby however. My point? I wouldn't be talking about Triathlons (any distance) without Crossfit. *for me* i wouldn't be willing to put in the time traditional training takes up and my guess I’m not the only one. Big picture point #2 - for all those that currently do triathlons, what percent of the current triathlon community do you consider "competitive" regarding complete vs. compete? I'm not about to tell the 2012 winner of IM Kona that he trained the wrong way, however he did it. CFE is not perfect but nor is traditional training and we can make a lot of claims for or against both training styles but  isn't the point www.beginnertriathlete.com to get people involved? So, can you do an Ironman doing Just CFE? Yes, yes you can. It has been proven out. Has the sport of Triathlon’s benefited from Crossfit? Yes, I stand before you as such an example.

Welcome to BT!

I haven't seen anyone say CFE isn't a valid way to complete triathlons.  The debate occurs when CF/CFE proponents claim it's a better way to train than established methods when it comes to optimizing performance.  The issue with those claims is twofold:

1. The results don't back up those claims.
2. Those claims are counter to the Specificity Principle, which has been proven time and again to hold true.

BTW, traditional training doesn't necessarily mean a huge number of hours.  My last HIM was a 5:40 on an average of less than 6 hours per week of traditional s/b/r training for the last year.  Not fast by most standards, but many would consider it respectable given such a low training volume.  I suspect that's less weekly volume than most CFEers do for similar events.