Excellent post!! You explained a lot of the gray areas in my knowledge with some very direct and clear statements! Thank you!

So is it possible to do something like ss and maintain the ability to run a 13:00 2 mile? I suffer from being a weak-ass and want to be much stronger keeping in mind that it is an essential part of my job. However, my career in the Army requires that I be able to run fast (on the test that measures what the Army considers fit anyway). Is doing a strength program like ss in conjunction with 2-3 met-cons going to allow me to maintain my ability to keep up with fast 18 y/o privates on Battalion Ave. at Ft. Hood? Or are the two going to work against each other?

I’m with 2nd Squadron, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment. If you come by Crossfit Ft. Hood there’s a good chance I’ll be there. Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I’m content with my running ability (for now)…I’m not content with my “weak-assness.” I think I just made my decision! Thanks again.

“The goal of Crossfit is to increase power output.”

No. You do not understand the goal of Crossfit. The goal of Crossfit is to increase work capacity across broad TIME and modal domains. Anyone who has regularly followed Crossfit.com for the past two years knows this. The earlier 3 conceptual definitions of fitness incorporated long-duration capacity as well.
Crossfit’s goal is not just to increase power. I talked to Crossfit’s director of training about this five minutes ago. Are you going to argue with him?
If you state that the goal of Dutch Lowy Training(copyright 2009) is to increase power output, that’s fine. But that’s not what you’re doing.
How can you give advice on Crossfit while misrepresenting the primary objective of Crossfit training?

You’re wrong Russ. From the CF_Manual_v4.pdf article Understanding CrossFit:

Aims
From the beginning, the aim of CrossFit has been to forge a broad, general,
and inclusive fitness.”

Dutch, it seems you are referring to the prescription.

“Prescription
“The CrossFit prescription is “constantly varied, high-intensity, functional
movement.”

“Intensity is defined exactly as power, and intensity is
the independent variable most commonly associated with maximizing favorable
adaptation to exercise.””

Russ,

IWCABTMD is the adaptation.

“Adaptations
Our commitment to evidence-based fitness, publicly
posting performance data, co-developing our program in
collaboration with other coaches, and our open-source
charter in general has well positioned us to garner
important lessons from our program—to learn precisely
and accurately, that is, about the adaptations elicited by
CrossFit programming. What we’ve discovered is that
CrossFit increases work capacity across broad time and
modal domains. This is a discovery of great import and
has come to motivate our programming and refocus
our efforts. This far-reaching increase in work capacity
supports our initially stated aims of building a broad,
general, and inclusive fitness program.”

Great post. Very insightful and I like the way you explained everything. I’d love to see more like this in the future. The comments are good also, really helps to open my eyes to the other side of the coin. Thanks guys.

Long time lurker here, first post… Just wanted to throw in my two cents on the issue, as it’s a very interesting question.

To start, I’ll take a stab at “What is CrossFit?” Reiterating what we have all heard, it’s “Constantly Varied, Functional Movements executed at high intensity with a goal of increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains”

Basically, we want to get good at a lot of stuff, and we want to be able to do it for both short and long durations.

Assuming we agree on this basic premise, the real question then becomes, what is the best way to train to achieve this goal? And I think this is what we are arguing here – ultimately, do we need to train in longer time domains to get good at performing in them?

There is a HUGE difference between training in longer time domains and performing well in them. Dutch isn’t arguing that we should never train long… In fact, he says 15-20% of our WoD’s should go to 20 minutes and beyond, but that we can still improve our performance in longer time domains by focusing the majority of our work in shorter, high power output WOD’s.

In summary, I think everyone needs to realize that different training programs and methodologies are not counter to the goal of CrossFit. The goal (which I think we all agree on) can be vastly different than the means by which we attempt to get there depending on how the individual adapts to different training inputs.

Look at the guys at CrossFit Endurance – their goal is the 100 mile ultramarathons – yet their longest training running is often only 13 miles. Training in shorter domains doesn’t mean we’re not prepared to perform better in longer domains.

Anyways, that’s my two cents – I just wanted to attempt to clarify what I think is becoming a muddied debate.

Great conversation – would love to hear more people weigh in!!

Kevin

Where is the evidence of elite distance runners improving their times with CF?

And just to clarify my last point – I think the jury is still out on whether CF + CFE will create elite endurance athletes. The program is still in its absolute infancy as far as training methods go, and it’s far too early to draw any clear conclusions.

I’m inclined to believe that when we see athletes who started training with CF + CFE in early high schools years develop, they will be extremely competitive at the highest levels.

But again, jury is still out.

After reading through some of the first CF Journal articles and attending a Level 1 Cert at One World in January 2009, I learned that the magic component of elite fitness is power output. At the Cert, I have notes of Tony Budding talking about intensity and power output and how they are related. Mr. Budding even went through a good 30 minutes to describe this phenomenon. It’s one of the most valuable aspects of fitness CrossFit has provided to its community.

The Level 1 Cert was an amazing experience for me. It made me want to learn more and more and more. What was the best fitness program? CrossFit. What workouts were the best at producing a high power output and strength? A ton of the mainsite WOD’s as Rx’d, some can be scaled for less rounds but keeping the weights heavy, MEBB, CFSB, CF Football, CF Oakland, and tons of other affiliates are doing a great job of this.

My goal is not to win the CF Games. My goal is to use CF methodology to have fun, gain strength (physically and mentally), create a high power output, to feel uncomfortable during the workout, and feel great 30 minutes after.

Thank you to Russ and Dutch for bringing up this topic.

There are a lot of empirical points that I can make here, (such as the high level of experience with many, if not most of the top 16 athletes at the games in longer duration metabolic conditioning.) However, arguing data and methodology is USELESS if we can’t agree on what Crossfit’s objective is.

We cannot empirically discern the goal of Crossfit through our work as coaches and athletes. Goals are inherently subjective and thus depend upon individual choice. In this case, the people who decide what Crossfit’s highest goal is are the people at Crossfit HQ.

That means not me, not Dutch, and not anyone else, other than the people at Crossfit HQ. This is why I brought up Dave, the director of training, since knowing what the goal of Crossfit is and promoting it, is his job. His statement is that the “goal of CrossFit is to increase work capacity across broad time and modal domains.“

Crossfit is a highly decentralized organization with regards to methodology. Every Crossfit gym does things its own way, from programming to nutrition to technique. This is good. Decentralization breeds dispersed experimentation and thus innovation. However, this decentralization does not apply to determining Crossfit’s highest goal: improved work capacity across broad time and modal domains.

You can argue with Crossfit’s stance on say, teaching the squat clean, and be right. You can’t argue with Crossfit on what the Crossfit definition of fitness is and thus highest goal is, and be right.

Therefore, I ask you, Dutch, do you agree that the goal of Crossfit is increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains?

From this starting point, we can analyze the data on what training various athletes have used to achieve their levels of performance and look for what particular methodologies have proven the most successful. But only from such a starting point, is such analysis of performance meaningful.

Lastly, I have nothing personal against you, Dutch.

“The goal of CrossFit HQ is increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains” – Yes, I agree with that statement 100% . If work capacity and power output are synonymous, you could say power output over various time ranges doing different exercises. The CrossFit Games were an excellent assessment of crowning the athlete who most resembled CrossFit HQ’s definition of fitness.

If I understand, it seems like Dutch is trying to make the point that power output will be highest when we keep our workouts short and intense. And if anerobic training carries over the aerobic training, we should be okay.

Now that we have established the goal as IWCABTAMD, we need to examine the data.

Do you agree that the 2009 Crossfit Games were the best test of work capacity across broad time and modal domains that we have seen so far?

If so, do you agree that examining the training methodologies of the athletes that competed, in light of their performances, is a valid way to see what training methodologies are most effective at producing Crossfit’s definition of fitness?

If you agree to that proposition, then let’s start looking at the training backgrounds and methodologies of the top athletes at the 2009 Games.

When I said results, I’m speaking exclusively in terms of placement at the Games – sorry.

Hold on now! If we are going to examine CrossFit “Athletes” then we are looking at people training for the sport of CF NOT people training for increased fitness. I think those are to separate animals. Just as Kevin stated earlier.

I have utilized the Theory of Dutch (as I like to call it) in my box of over 50 people and we run random 5k’s and each time 95% of the clients pr. We lift heavy and often and usually keep WODs in the 7-12 minutes range several times a week, with one sub 5min and one 15+. The bi-product of this is IWCABTAMD.

It works for me and my clients, and I will change when I see evidence that is doesn’t work.

Good convo.

Russ,
You are changing the course of the discussion by bringing up the cf games. I have already gotten in trouble for my comments about this years games so I will not restate them. You can search for them on this blog if you so choose.

There is a very simple answer to the question I have asked you several times which you choose to ignore. I am not trying to get into a case study of this years cf games competitors. Although I think you will find what I have been saying all along is true. The one with the highest power output is the champion.

This discussion is limited to whether or not power output is a valid definition of crossfit. One more time. How do you measure iwcabtmd?

Dutch,
It is obvious that IWCABTAMD is about improving power output in many different modalities and many different time domains.

What is not obvious is that this definition of fitness should motivate us to bias our training towards olympic lifting or short duration workouts in general.

If the 2009 Crossfit games were not an effective test of work capacity across broad time and modal domains (though I can’t understand why they wouldn’t be), then what performance data do you suggest that we base our analysis off of? What better tests of work capacity across broad time and modal domains exist?

We shouldn’t put much stock in assertions about Crossfit training which are not based on performance data.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that your athletes progress well with your programming. What I dispute is that they have made more progress than they would have with Crossfit.com style programming and skill work oriented around their weak points. The best place to demonstrate the superiority of one method of fitness programming, as far as I can tell, is Crossfit competition, the highest level of which is found each year in Aromas.

I think it might be useful to remember what the elite athletes’ times are for the .com’s WODs. I regularly hear people preach longer workouts (or complain about sub 20min workouts) because that’s how long the main site WODs take them. It has been stated countless times that those WODs are designed for elite athletes. Most of the times posted for those WODs are NOT elite. If you take a look at Speal’s times for the main site when he posted, coming across one over 20 minutes would be a rare find. The main site WODs are only long when done incorrectly, in my opinion. I don’t think what Dutch is saying about the shorter duration training in relation to the longer WODs is any different than the metcon pattern posted on the main site. He is just explicit about the time domains which helps scale things for those of us who can’t crank out a sub-15 “Angie”.

It seems you desperately want to use the CF games for empirical data so lets go for it. I cringe when you say and effective way to measure work output because when i hear that i also think efficient. I do not think it was an efficient test of work capacity. Thorough but not efficient.

Regarding .com athletes. I have had many people both regular people and competitive crossfitters come to me with frustrations about progress on .com programming. Following my advice or my programming we have broken through plateaus and improved performances.
A main issue i have with .com and any online program for that matter is that it doesn’t address people as individuals. You can’t argue with this. We hide behind the fact that everyone needs to work on everything but i think people would see better results if each of them had a personal program. This is Obviously impossible when you are running a gym with 200+ people but it is true nonetheless.
Instead of not focusing on anything i have realized that as a catch all (i’m not the only one who has seen this) strength is a huge weaknesses in both competitive crossfitters and everyday people. The olympic lifts are also a technical weakness. Like i said before, they are gymnastics with weights. In fact i would put any trained olympic lifter against an elite gymnast in a test of Crossfit anyday.

So, instead of being weak and hoping that one strength workout every 6 days will make me stronger, i am choosing to focus my clients training on what i think is invaluable in an athlete- STRENGTH.

A comment came up the other day that i really liked. What do collegiate and professional athletes do in the off season? They focus on strength and power production, rehab injuries and maintain conditioning. When they go to camp, a month out from the season starting, they start trying to improve their conditioning. I like this and thats what i would do if i were a competitive Crossfitter…

speaking of angie – i’d love to see a video of speal cranking it out in 7-8 minutes.

looking forward to the review of the other sites!

A second point while I’m at it…

I absolutely love this conversation and debate, and I really appreciate the time and thought everyone has put into it! I just wish we could more accurately define what it is that we’re arguing about!

We all agree that the goal of CrossFit is IWCABTAMD, right?

So the questions remaining are:

1) What is the best way to develop IWCABTAMD?
2) What is the best method by which to test WCABTMD?
3) Is there a way to isolate programming as it relates to IWCABTAMD?

I think question number 3 is the reason there is no consensus answer, AND the reason we see numerous programming philosophies floating around the CrossFit community.

Ultimately and realistically, we’ll never have an empirical answer to that for several reasons…

1) We’ll never have a “test” so well controlled as to isolate programming as a variable.
2) IWCABTAMD is, by it’s very definition, nearly impossible to test!! It’s tested every year at the CrossFit games, but take a quick look at the last 3 games, and how differently athletes were stressed at each.

So, what’s the bottom line? These questions are DAMN fun to argue, but I really don’t think we’ll ever have a FINAL answer. But really, isn’t that the point?

Dutch says:

“What do collegiate and professional athletes do in the off season? They focus on strength and power production, rehab injuries and maintain conditioning. When they go to camp, a month out from the season starting, they start trying to improve their conditioning. I like this and thats what i would do if i were a competitive Crossfitter…”

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. For those looking for further exploration into this, I’d recommend Eric Cressey’s “Ultimate Off-Season Training Manual”.

In it, he mentions how vertical jumps at the NFL combine are greater than those at the NBA combine. Why? Because NFL players have an off-season, due to the fact that it’s too hard to play full-contact football year round, while a pick-up game of basketball (essentially “conditioning”), is easy to do year round.