Ironman on nothing but CrossFit and CrossFit Endurance (Page 4)

His blog states he did it the "traditional" way. 4 months of 16+ hours??  No wonder you burned out. 

You are missing the point, by making some false assumptions.

First, you already "draw the line" by claiming we are "traditionalists"... I don't even know what that means. I come from a MTBing background for years and years. I know that how you get better biking is by biking. Can CF give me some core strength, some added power.. sure it can. Nobody ever said it can't. But for endurance and long distance stuff, you have to put in the miles/time. You do not have to look at CF vs. Triathletes...  look at every single sport on the planet... those at the tops of their sport are there by training their sport. Yet CF'ers like to claim that you can be better at your sport with more CF and less specific training... what that amounts to is me going all over the web claiming I can win a CF games by just swimming biking and running. That would be a ridiculous statement... how you win a CF game is by doing CF.

You're other false assumption is all these hours we are putting in... Ironman says to do a IM you should be doing about 30 hours a week... yet I do not know of any non professional that can train 30 hpw. Endurance is accumulative... I did my first HIM last year at 6:11, I expect under 5:30 this year... yet I only "train" about 10 hours a week on average.... If I was doing CFE I would still only be doing 10 hours a week.. that is about all I have time for. So if I only did CFE, could I do a HIM... well of course I could... but not because of CFE, just because I can. I have thoughts of doing a IM and if I kept up my training I would only be doing 15 hours at max right before the event(and that would take some sacrifice).... yet if all I can muster is 10 hours or 15 hours of training... I can guarantee you I will have the best times devoting all that time to SBR. Can I complete a IM today with 10 hrs a week... I would put money on it that I could.

With a triathlete such as myself, can you honestly tell me I will have lower HIM times adding in CF and taking out SBR time?

And, are you trying to tell me, that all the training time you have right now, doing CF/CFE... that you have better times at your HIM, and would have slower times if you devoted the same time you are training right now to SBR?

See, that is the problem most folks have. It isn't whether it can be done.. of course it can... it is if you have a finite time to train... which every human has a finite time to train... what type of training will give you the best results for what you are doing? CF'er seem to complete something, and then somehow draw the conclusion that that was the best possible way to do it.

I had not been on my bike in a few years. I signed up for a century. I planned on training for it, but never did. The day of the event I got off the couch and did my century. It was not pretty, but I did it. By the same example above... it would be a correct statement then that in order to complete a century, one must sit on the couch for 3 years and put on 30 pounds. Yet those are exactly the types of comparisons made by CF'ers doing triathlons.

For you point #2... that is the point... probably 90% of those involved in triathlon are not "competitive" in the strict sense. 90% of those doing it will never see a podium, and the majority of those 10% that might, will only do so in a small local race when no big names show up. Yet I feel confident that the majority of those 90% are there to "compete"... competing against themselves to put up the fastest time they can put up. Sure there is a part of the population that is just there to complete one and enjoy the scenery, but most are trying to do the best they can.

For those that are trying to do the best time they can do, I can say with confidence, due to decades upon decades of evidence, that they will put up the fastest SBR time... by SBRing. That is not being a head in sand staunch traditionalist... that is just stating the fact that indeed the sky is blue.

I am glad you have found training that makes you happy and allows you to participate in events at a level you are comfortable with doing.  However, the question you are asking cannot be answered.  As you probably know, endurance is built up over a long time.  And it takes a long time to completely lose.  Once you've 'done it' before, it takes much less work to get back to a level you reached previously than it originally took to get there.  You are not going to compare CF/CFE training vs. conventional SBR training.  You are going to compare conventional SBR training against CF/CFE training on top of a conventional SBR training base.

Again, am glad the training you have found brings you enjoyment and suits your lifestyle.  I'd encourage others to do it if it was going to meet their goals.  Best of luck in WI.

alburyscott,  I've been doing 3 to 5 CF WODs per week. They include a 10 minute strength session where we work on 1 exercise (deadlift, clean, bench press, squat, etc) followed by a typical 5 to 25 minutes CF WOD (like the ones posted on CF mainsite). Once a week, the strength session is replaced by a skill set (rope climb, gymnastic movements, etc)

http://ironmandre.blogspot.com/

Powerman,

Let me clear up a point for you - Crossfit Endurance is Swim / Bike / Run and Rowing so it is sport specific. It is interveral in nature vs. S/B/R Long Slow distances "traditional" training. Your defensive tone is assuming one would be at the best only doing Crossfit - then go do a IM. I didn't and I am not making that claim. That statement is no different than saying someone could do a full IM with less than 10 hours of training a week, doing traditional R/B/S LSD. Possible in either case? yes, but not likely.

I can also tell you I was back doing Crossfit WODs and CFE's with only 1 day off after my Half IM. Can you make the same claim doing "traditional" workouts? I'm claiming it to be a more efficient use of my training time. And as i noted in my original post, crossfit is introducing more people to the sport of triathalons as it is more appealing and they get a total body workout and in less time than "traditional" methods (see tommyalberto's posts).  

This is another point that people like to cherry pick to suit there argument. "Traditional SBR" training is not LSD... that is just what CF people like to focus on because CF is all about intensity. But that argument is not new and was around long before CF. How much training should one do LSD vs. high intensity? And yes... my HIM was yesterday and I will be back to training tomorrow to prep for my century in 2 weeks with 12K of climbing and my next HIM in 5 weeks.

Running is a very broad sport with a very broad spectrum of people that do it. Volume vs. intensity has been talked to death. Each has it's merits, and each is done for specific reasons... yet at the end of the day, people are different and the same program applied to all the people will not yield the same results.

The people that respond well to speed work in running do speed work. The people that are injury prone do volume. People that are attracted to CF respond well to high intensity work. Yet then the broad bush comes out and sweeping generalizations are made.

Even your above example of Tommy Alberto... he says, "I have validated the program on lower distance tris". No, he hasn't "validated the program". He has found something he likes better and it worked out for him on top of the endurance training he has under his belt. And by all means one should do what they want and find a program that suits their goals and lifestyles... his results are not invalid for him, they just might be for me.

I know CFE has SBR... but not very much and all high intensity... or most. Again, might work for some, and some folks might find the program a much better fit for their life, but when you have a finite amount of time, and you want the best results from that training time... then it is not much of a stretch to do the things that have been proven to give the best results for decades. But the Founder of CF comes out and says he can do it all better... then to shore up some weaknesses they put together CFE... and claim it is the best thing since sliced bread.

Straight from the web site:

"Long slow duration results in athletes being less powerful, less lean and more prone to injury, low energy and abbreviated sport longevity. We will make you faster. We will make you leaner. We will increase your power."

That is a ridiculous strawman argument.

Now if you want overall fitnesses, better strength, some cardio to go do some tris... oh well ya, CF/CFE has some good things going for it. But it wasn't endurance athletes (that do plenty of high intensity work) that came out and said CF/CFE is stupid... if was the leadership of CF/CFE that came out claiming superiority over traditional "specific" training. For everything, endurance sports, power lifting, general fitnesses... So far, that claim has been entirely unsubstantiated in any measurable way. Yet the claims continue to be made by the CF faithful. A guy completing a triathlon is not proof.

So Powerman, what exactly are you doing for your training if it isn't LSD? If you are debating the point that high intensity interval workouts vs. LSD is a better method for training then we are saying the same thing. Not sure why you are so anit-CF/CFE if again i stated from the outset it is getting people who wouldn't normally consider doing Tri's to start doing them. You seem to want to at every opportunity bash Crossfit and Crossfit endurance as to "unsubstantiated in any measurable way." That is an unfounded statment and the simple reality is people are training for Triathalons of all distances doing CF+CFE and it works for them. In addition to the posts and training logs people are putting up, here is a video of individual who only did CFE as their training for IMLP. All got PR's on their times: http://library.crossfit.com/free/video/CFJ_AgainFaster_LakePlacid.mov.

And to your point that "CFE has some SBR but not much"? What? That's what CFE is. And "When you have a finite amount of time, and you want the best results from that training time" ... CFE is more work in less time. You aren't making objective comparrisons between the two methods, just professing a disgust of one method over another. Have you done only CFE training to make that statement? I have done both methods of training and eneded up with knee issues from over training. Only because of CF+CFE and utilizing different leg mussels and I able to do Tri's vs sitting on the couch.

I am not making the claim that CF-CFE is "better" than traditional LSD training, but I am making the claim that CF+CFE works. I can go find statments of traditional LSD training who would make the claim they were crippled from training countless miles just as easily as you can find claims by the crossfit founders to say it is the best thing since sliced bread. Proof is in the pudding, BOTH methods works, one just takes alot less time. Argue that point all you want, but thats the reality.

I'm going to guess, like most doing 'conventional' SBR training that he swims, bikes and runs at a variety of intensities.  It's as stupid to say conventional tri training is all LSD as it is to say it is impossible to complete an IM using CFE. 

If you are going to train less time, then you train harder (to get more work done).  But, the 'best' method (assuming you want to maximize performance) is to do some intensity and some volume so that you can maximize work done and create adaptations to prepare you for race day. 

I realize that almost every AG athlete does not have 'maximize performace' as their sole constraint.  And that's where balancing intensity and volume come in.  CFE is (at least towards) one end of the spectrum.

People don't really take well when the marketing materials for something make statements which are absurd like:

"Long slow duration results in athletes being less powerful, less lean and more prone to injury, low energy and abbreviated sport longevity."

CFE is nothing 'new'.  It's just packaged up and sold as something 'better' for people.

Again ... I don't care what has been "said" about Crossfit and CFE. You can debate all day long what is the "best" training protocols or methods. The reality is a training regiment of CF+CFE works and more and more people are doing it and getting into events they otherwise would not have. Otherwise you would hear people saying that it is crap and not to do it. That is my original point, it is getting people off their couches and reaching an audience that otherwise wasn't interested in Tri's (myself included). All I keep hearing is bruised ego's that want to "debunk the hype". And you're right, interval training is not new, but interval training (CFE) with functional movements (Crossfit) is.

And again, the only 'problem' most people have with this is the way it is marketed and espoused.  Not sure anyone has ever said it is 'crap and not to do it'.  But, it's also not the best way to prepare oneself for an endurance race.  Can it 'work'?  Sure, if work is defined as getting across the finish line, a lot of things can 'work'.  Personally, I don't really care if people want to do CF+CFE and do tris--there's nothing intrinsically 'good' to me about more people doing tris.  But I'm always glad when people find an activity that they enjoy and makes them feel good about themselves.  If CF or CF+CFE does that for you, great.  I wish you the best of luck in your training and races.  But I would not meet my current goals doing CF+CFE.  And I happen to enjoy my 'traditional' training.  Different strokes...

I'm not sure why you take statements about outlandish claims in their marketing so personally.  You seemed surprised that people would have a negative impression of CF+CFE.  Their marketing tactics and claims are part of the reason (though likely also a reason for the success they have had).

Okee Dokeee... Let's try to be clear here... CF/CFE has helped lots of people achieve their fitness goals and is an exciting alternative to other programs. It has some unique features that some people really dig and helps keep them motivated and off the couch. So does Yoga, P90X, TRX, Curves, SBR, Insanity.... That is great. I'm not taking anything away from any of that, and if CF/CFE fits your lifestyle, fits your goals, and fits your schedule, by all means keep doing it!!!

Where this debate started was the founder and his faithful following making ridiculous statements that so far has not been backed up by any legitemate study. CF/CFE, can bring a level of fittness to people just like SBR can. For the vast majority of people they are happy to just be active and particiapte and both can take them far. Yet CF/CFE proponents like to claim SUPERIORITY over all other training protocols. That their way is the best way. That is an entirely different discussion over "what will prepare you to complete" an event. And just as you have shown very well... Pro CF/CFE folks would like you to believe their system will give you better results with less training... the exact "shortcut" approach peddled by most "get all the rewards with less of the work" most fittness systems preach.

Your next argument does nothing to dispell any of the misinformation coming from CF/CFE proponents. That ALL "traditional" SBR training is LONG SLOW DISTANCE. It is a ridiculous strawman argument because there is no such thing.

Swim--- join a masters class and see how much LSD you get... other than the first 1000 to get warmed up, the other 4000 is all out. Long sets, short sets, speed work, intervals, races... Swimming does not beat you up as much, so you can do a lot of high intensity work. And the only way you will get faster is by lots of high intensity work... not 20 minutes of sprints, hours of them. Obviously, you might not have the time to do 20,000 yards a week, but 10K of hard work will take you far. It will take you much further than 5K of hard work. There really is not much of a mystery with that.

Bike--- again, much easier on the joints and you can do much more high intensity work. I good program will have you doing two high intensity workouts, a relatively easier one and a long one. Distance, and intensity. Again, it is not much of a strech, to say 60 miles of high intensity is better than 30, but not as good as 5 hours when you are doing 5 hour events.

Run--- this one is tricky. Running does put a lot of stress on the body and and it takes years to build it up to take 100 miles a week of running. Even more to do 100 mpw with speed work like most serious runners/pros do. I have no desire what so ever to ever do a 100 miles in one week. I do 30. And I do them realatively easy with no speed work because that is about all I can take. To get faster I need to do more higher intensity work. But for now, volume alone is still giving me continued improvement. But slow is relative. I go slow enough to get my week done... that is fast for some people, it is slow to others. It is low intensity though for me.

Now to add it all up for a triathlete.... Obviously, the body can only recover so fast. Not everyone is the same. A 20 year old in the Marine doing CF is not the same as some 40 yo getting off the couch to loose a few pounds. To be the best cyclist you need to stop running and swimming. To be the best runner you need to stop cycling and swimming... but to be the best at SBR, then you need to swim, bike, and run. There is also plenty of literature that shows strength training helps in some areas, and most will do that in the off season. But it is an additional stress that can't be afforded if your only goal is to SBR the best you can.

Yet CF/CFE proponents would have you believe that everyone doing short duration high intensity work will make them faster that any other training protocol. And that strength training is an integral part of making endurance athletes faster. You will get faster and stronger with less time and best of all... you will be less injured. Nice icing on that cake, and I have some beach front property in Arizona I would like you to take a look at.

If you stricktly do CF/CFE protocol for years and years... you will hit a platau with SBR, and the ONLY thing that will get you to improve is more volume. If you do low intensity SBR for years and years you will hit a platau and the only way to improve will be to add high intensity work. You need it all, and even strength training has it's place in endurance sports. But CF/CFE like to make it black and white one or the other.

Even you your self said it... many "traditional" athletes have switched to CF/CFE and all have PRed... Ya, PR means they already had a record to begin with. They already were SBRing, and now have ADDED something to their base and see improvements. Do that for years and years and the base errodes and your times will go down. Yet supposedly, that is proof that CF/CFE is SUPERIOR to regular SBR training.

Do what ever gives you the best results. If that is CF/CFE...then keep doing it. I would. Just stop going all over the web trying to convert all us heathens that continue to improve and drop times using more conventional methods. It isn't bragging if you can back it up.... so far I just hear a bunch of bragging.

JohnnyKay,

I am not taking personally your point regarding "outlandish" statements you reference are made in the media. What I am taking personally is that both you powermax seem to feel the need to discount CF+CFE - which I have personally followed for a year and half - as a viable valid way to train for a triathlon. Like you said, different strokes. I haven't said your way or anyother way isn't valid only that CF+CFE is an effecient use of your time. And I don't consider a 5:52 Half Ironman as "crawling across the finish line". It has worked for me and I will continue to follow it and speak to its abilities regarding a more efficient use of my training time.

powerman,

Again, not sure how you espouse to be all knowing on CF+CFE without having trained with those methods yourself. Seeing and doing is believing, reading about is not. If I told you my car got 100 miles to the gallon, would you believe me? Of course not. If I showed you HOW to get 100 miles to the gallon, wouldn't you want to know how? Bragging, no, else i'd be laying claims regarding my times which is absurd. But what I am saying (not someone in the media or else where) -an average Joe with a full time job, family and bills - follows a training method that is more effecient use of my time for because I have done it. You are a disbelieving nay sayer even though you haven't done it. 

Oh, and to clarify your rebuttle regarding my point around PR's and further "proof" ... Note the "first timers" and only following CFE in this Trimax article:

"TriMax athletes Erica Dinner, Martin Henry, Dave Carbone, Jay Swift, Melanie Melocowsky, Brittany Rutter, Ariel Legassa, Christina Wunderle, Sue Grigely, and Colleen Healy all overtook Ironman Lake Placid on July 25th. 

While Dinner, Henry, Carbone, Legassa, Wunderle, Grigely and Healy were all first timers, the balance of the team all set personal bests in either certain segments of their races or in their overall time." ... " These groundbreaking athletes were trained exclusively on the protocols of CrossFit and CrossFit Endurance"

http://www.gotrimax.com/TriMaxAthletes.htm

TriMax Sends 10 Athletes to Ironman Lake Placid

November 1, 2010

TriMax athletes Erica Dinner, Martin Henry, Dave Carbone, Jay Swift, Melanie Melocowsky, Brittany Rutter, Ariel Legassa, Christina Wunderle, Sue Grigely, and Colleen Healy all overtook Ironman Lake Placid on July 25th. 

While Dinner, Henry, Carbone, Legassa, Wunderle, Grigely and Healy were all first timers, the balance of the team all set personal bests in either certain segments of their races or in their overall time.  Congratulations to the entire team! 

These groundbreaking athletes were trained exclusively on the protocols of CrossFit and CrossFit Endurance.  Wondering how you can race at your best and train less than you ever have?  Watch this video chronicling 5 of our athletes and their journeys on race day. Click here.

They are not made in the "media".  They are made in the marketing by the founders!  The CFE marketing says they have revolutionized endurance training!

I have not discounted CF+CFE as a viable way to train for ANYTHING--you seem to be awfully defensive about this point without anyone claiming anything close to it here.  It is certainly not the best way to train for an endurance event IF performance is your main goal/constraint.  But virtually anyone following CF+CFE has already decided that they have other goals/constraints and that CF+CFE fits into those constraints well.  I, myself, tend to follow a relatively lower volume/higher intensity approach to much of my training.  It fits my lifestyle and goals.  I am under no delusion that it will allow me to maximize my performance.  I am, however, highly confident that it will continue to move me farther up the performance curve than if I dropped it and moved to CF+CFE instead.  And that's important enough for me to commit the added time.  I understand completely that it would not be important enough for everybody.

If you only want to see one thing, fine by me. We can just agree to disagree. I never argued CFE does not "work" for you, or anyone else. Specifically, I have taken issue with the claims put out by CF/CFE proponents. If you did not make the claims, I really don't see what your interest is in my statements.

For the fith time, you can do a IM on CFE, you can do it of P90X, you can do it with traditional SBR, there are some gifted people that can get right off the couch and do it. There are all sorts of people that have done triathlons on all sorts of programs, and there are plenty too that have done triathlons on very minimal training of any kind. Thousands of cases out there. Big harry deal.

Whether you like the history of your program or not, it is out there. It is not really anything new, rebranded, repacked, short duration high intensity exercise. The only real cardio to it was rowing, which is a great workout. But then all the claims came out, with really nothing to back it up. Originally, it was put out that CF was the best of all wolrds. Then... somehow they took aim at triathlon and CF was not enough... guess what, they actually had to add in some SBR. So now CFE is the end all be all of endurance training. Sorry if you do not agree with that, but it is what it is.

So then proponents come forward, one after the other, over and over... I did a triathlon on nothing but CFE... big deal, so did a 70 year old Nun on nothing but SBR. What's the point? Again, all manner of people have done all manner of triathalons on all manner of programs. Yet CFE proponents still want to put forward their practitioners as the best examples out there of what can be done. Again... if you are not making such statments, then I'm really not sure what your problem is with me taking issue with those that do.

CFE most definitely has it's places. There are most definitely those that will respond well to it. So what? It does not make it the BEST training program, or the BEST way to spend one's time training for a triathlon. And I feel confident actually saying it could be the WORST way for SOME to train for a triathlon. Sorry, it's the truth. I will keep doing what fits for me and I hope you do the same. Best of luck in all your endeavors.