To begin, I want to preface that this piece is not an attack on CrossFit methodology but more of an analysis of the current standards, practices, and atmosphere. I want this paper to bring to light that CrossFit's current methodology is inefficient for developing competitive athletes due to its lack of specificity, periodization, and individualized programming. To provide more background, I have held my CrossFit L1 credential and followed CrossFit since 2011, experiencing its highs and lows. I recently had a discussion with Paul Weber, which pushed me to look further into the current state of CrossFit and the lack of advancement in training practices and programming across the board. CrossFit has certainly grown as a method of training and brought fitness more into the spotlight across the globe. However, the attempts at incorporating more optimized forms of programming has been shunned or met with animosity at the thought of deviating from the core of constantly varied functional movements performed at a high intensity. I hope that you approach this with an open mind. I love CrossFit and I want the message of health, fitness, and the push for an active lifestyle to continue but for it to take the next steps as a method of training it needs to begin improving.
CrossFit, as a training methodology, has revolutionized the fitness industry with its focus on high-intensity functional movements, general physical preparedness (GPP), and variety. While it has successfully created a global movement of people who value strength, conditioning, and community-based workouts, the methodology has significant limitations when it comes to developing competitive athletes at the highest level of the sport. Will everyone be a Games Athlete? No, but this is a group of individuals who are not shy in pushing into the realms of the uncomfortable so why not make the training more efficient? The CrossFit methodology, as practiced in most affiliate gyms, falls short in areas like specificity, periodization, and recovery, all of which are critical to creating elite CrossFit athletes. I want to delve into these shortcomings and propose a more efficient approach for developing competitive CrossFit athletes.
One of the most significant limitations of CrossFit's generalist approach is the lack of specificity in training. CrossFit prides itself on preparing individuals for the "unknown and unknowable" by programming constantly varied workouts. While this is beneficial for general fitness and overall physical preparedness, it is inefficient for athletes aiming to excel in a specific sport like competitive CrossFit. Competitive athletes need targeted training that addresses their individual weaknesses and goals. The randomness of traditional CrossFit workouts often neglects this need. Instead of building a training regimen based on the specific demands of a competition or the athlete's personal deficits, CrossFit programming is designed to touch on as many different movements as possible. This can lead to overtraining in some areas while neglecting others.
For instance, many competitive CrossFit athletes need to focus on refining complex movements like muscle-ups, snatches, and handstand walks. The CrossFit methodology often fails to provide the necessary focused practice on these movements, instead opting for general skill training that lacks the depth required for mastery. At best most people will remain below or at novice level for gymnastics movements when the standards provided in programming do not allow for consistent time necessary for advancement of the skill set to someone with little to no experience.
Another critical issue with CrossFit's methodology is the absence of structured periodization. Periodization is the planned variation in training volume and intensity to optimize performance gains while minimizing the risk of injury. Traditional sports and strength training programs have long relied on periodization to help athletes peak at the right time, yet CrossFit programming often ignores this concept in favor of "constantly varied" workouts. Through my travels and education, I’ve dropped-in at multiple boxes and noticed similarities between the community with a high drive for self-improvement but what always got to me was the discrepancy between the programming at each location. Some followed main site WODs while others followed “competitors” programming from the likes of CompTrain for example.
Without structured periodization, CrossFit athletes can become susceptible to overtraining and injury due to the constant demand for high-intensity efforts. Would it be advisable to max out your back squat daily? No. Yet we see consistent high intensity efforts through metcons at near max efforts which is not sustainable over time. For competitive athletes, managing intensity and volume throughout the year is crucial to avoiding burnout and ensuring that they are peaking during competition season. CrossFit's one-size-fits-all approach does not adequately account for the need to cycle between hypertrophy, strength, and power phases or to taper before competitions. Instead, athletes are often subjected to the same high intensity demands day in and day out, with little variation in intensity or volume to promote recovery and long-term progress.
As I have stated before, CrossFit athletes are not shy to harder efforts and pushing into the “pain cave”. With this double edge sword, it can sometimes act as a downfall of the CrossFit methodology especially when being managed by coaches with little experience in the realm of managing athlete training volumes. In many CrossFit gyms, there is a prevailing culture of "pushing through the pain" and glorifying daily high-intensity efforts. If you’re not on the ground unable to speak did you really workout? While this may build mental toughness, it is not conducive to long-term athlete development. Recovery and managing pace is a critical component of any athlete's training program, yet CrossFit's generalized approach often neglects to educate athletes on proper utilization of these techniques.
Elite-level athletes require carefully planned recovery protocols that include proper nutrition, mobility work, sleep, and active recovery strategies. Competitive athletes need to strike a balance between hard training sessions and adequate recovery to ensure continued progress. Unfortunately, many CrossFit programs fail to prioritize this, often treating recovery as an afterthought rather than a foundational pillar of athletic performance. One of the most unique aspects of CrossFit is its blending of strength and conditioning into single training sessions. While this is effective for building general fitness, it is not the most efficient approach for athletes aiming to excel in competitive CrossFit. To maximize performance, athletes need to dedicate specific blocks of time to improving their strength, endurance, and skill work separately, rather than blending them all into one session
For example, Olympic lifting requires focused technical work and strength training, while conditioning sessions need to be programmed to enhance cardiovascular capacity without detracting from strength gains. CrossFit's tendency to blend all aspects of fitness into each workout can cause interference in training adaptations. Strength and endurance are two different physiological systems that often compete when trained simultaneously, making it difficult for athletes to reach their full potential in either domain. This lack of focus can prevent athletes from making the necessary improvements in strength or conditioning needed for competition.
I applaud CrossFit for creating an environment with its accessibility and community-driven approach. However, I have reservations regarding the level of entry for people to begin coaching others. After receiving my L1 I was initially excited at the prospect of being able to implement the methodology but as I traveled and met amazing, fantastic coaches I realized those who were truly exceptional had a background in strength and conditioning or some realm of competitive sport. To me this inconsistency in quality of coach presents a significant limitation for competitive athletes. The quality of coaching across CrossFit affiliates varies greatly, as does the level of programming. Since CrossFit affiliates are independently owned, programming is typically designed by the head coach or owner, which can lead to inconsistency in the quality and structure of the workouts. Some affiliates excel at providing structured, goal-oriented programming for competitive athletes, while others focus more on providing varied workouts for general fitness enthusiasts.
For athletes who want to compete at a high level, inconsistent coaching and programming can hinder progress. Without a clear, periodized plan that addresses the demands of competition, athletes are left to fill in the gaps on their own, often leading to burnout, overtraining, or injury. To create competitive CrossFit athletes more efficiently, the following strategies should be implemented:
1. Targeted Skill Development: Instead of relying on random workouts, programming should be tailored to address an athlete’s specific weaknesses. Athletes need focused skill work on complex movements, with sufficient volume and intensity to drive improvement.
2. Structured Periodization: A periodized approach should be adopted, allowing athletes to cycle through phases of hypertrophy, strength, power, and conditioning. This ensures athletes can peak for competition while reducing the risk of injury and burnout.
3. Recovery-Focused Programming: Recovery should be treated as an integral part of the training program, with deliberate rest days, active recovery, and mobility work incorporated into the athlete’s routine.
4. Separation of Strength and Conditioning: Strength and conditioning should be trained in separate blocks or training sessions to minimize interference and maximize adaptations in each area. Strength work should focus on building absolute strength through dedicated lifting sessions, while conditioning should focus on improving work capacity and endurance.
5. Higher Quality Coaching: Competitive athletes need access to experienced coaches who understand the demands of the sport and can provide individualized programming. This requires CrossFit coaches to move beyond the standard Level 1 certification and gain specialized knowledge in periodization, biomechanics, and sports nutrition.
6. Data-Driven Approach: Incorporating data from fitness trackers and meaningful objective performance measures from training can help in quantifying the success and progress of training. This can make it easier to adjust workloads and intensity based on the athlete's recovery status and progress. This approach can be used to avoid overtraining and make real-time decisions to enhance performance.
While CrossFit's methodology has been successful in fostering a global fitness movement, it is not the most efficient method for developing competitive athletes. Its lack of specificity, absence of structured periodization, and insufficient emphasis on recovery and coaching consistency present significant roadblocks for those aiming to excel in the sport. By adopting a more focused and periodized approach, with individualized skill work, dedicated strength and conditioning blocks, and proper recovery protocols, CrossFit athletes can be developed more efficiently and effectively for competition.
But wait… I know you’re going to bring up the CrossFit Journal.
CrossFit’s methodology, as outlined in the CrossFit Journal, has become a global phenomenon with its focus on varied functional movements and high-intensity workouts. When the methodology comes into question animosity is shown towards the outside or differing perspective. I consistently see “you clearly haven’t read the CrossFit Journal… or I bet you haven’t touched a CrossFit class.” When it comes to creating competitive athletes, certain aspects of CrossFit’s foundational principles lack both empirical support and efficient application. Specifically, some methodologies presented in the CrossFit Journal remain theory-based, unsubstantiated by research, and there is an inherent inefficiency in addressing individual athlete deficits, which is critical for high-level performance. Imagine if everyone trained like Michael Jordan because he specifically said he only jumped rope. Would you take that as the peak of training for basketball players? Again, I want to return to my initial statement above. I am critically examining specific claims from the CrossFit Journal that remain theoretical, highlight the inconsistency in addressing individual athlete needs, and propose more evidence-based and structured approaches for developing competitive CrossFit athletes.
The "Theoretical Hierarchy of Development", introduced by CrossFit founder Greg Glassman in the CrossFit Journal, suggests a pyramid of athletic development where nutrition is the foundation, followed by metabolic conditioning, gymnastics, weightlifting, and finally sport-specific skills. While the conceptual framework appears logical, much of it lacks research-based validation, particularly when applied to competitive athletes. For instance, Glassman’s claim that metabolic conditioning should precede strength training and technical skill work is not supported by sports science literature. In fact, many elite sports training models advocate for a different approach. Evidence suggests that building a solid foundation of strength and skill in complex movements (such as Olympic lifts) should come before attempting to build metabolic capacity, particularly for competitive athletes who need to perform highly technical movements under fatigue.
Furthermore, the "World-Class Fitness in 100 Words" article published in the CrossFit Journal presents a minimalist guide to training that includes advice like "practice and train major lifts" and "five or six days per week, mix these elements in as many combinations and patterns as creativity will allow." While this may serve general fitness goals, there is no evidence that this level of variety optimally trains athletes for competitive CrossFit, where mastery in specific movements and targeted strength-building protocols are crucial. In contrast, well-researched strength and conditioning principles emphasize the importance of progressive overload, targeted skill acquisition, and the avoidance of "random" training for those seeking elite performance. Athletes preparing for competition need a deliberate, structured approach, not just the random combination of exercises described in CrossFit's general fitness philosophy.
The CrossFit methodology is built around the concept of General Physical Preparedness (GPP), which prioritizes broad, overall fitness instead of specialization in any one area. While GPP can create well-rounded athletes, it is insufficient for the development of competitive CrossFit athletes who need specific skills and fitness capacities to excel. The Journal articles often claim that the constantly varied, functional movements at high intensity will eventually address all areas of weakness, but this does not align with what is required for competitive programming. For example, in the CrossFit Journal's "What is Fitness?" article, there is an assertion that CrossFit prepares individuals for "any physical contingency." However, elite CrossFit athletes must compete in highly specific domains—from complex Olympic lifts like the snatch to nuanced gymnastics movements such as muscle-ups. These athletes require periodized, targeted training to address specific deficits in strength, technique, or mobility. CrossFit's general programming philosophy often overlooks this need for individualization, assuming that "randomized" programming will eventually cover all bases.
However, randomized programming fails to address individual weaknesses in a systematic manner. For instance, an athlete who struggles with muscle-ups may need several weeks or months of dedicated skill work on this movement. A CrossFit gym running general programming will not always include sufficient volume or focused practice on muscle-ups to allow that athlete to make meaningful progress. Instead, that athlete might encounter muscle-ups sporadically in metcons or skill sessions, but without the consistency needed to make significant strides. This inefficiency is particularly glaring when considering elite-level programming. Competitive athletes require a fine-tuned approach that considers their unique strengths and weaknesses. The inability to consistently program toward individual deficits is a major limitation in CrossFit’s current methodology. For instance, weak posterior chain development may hold back an athlete’s deadlift or clean, but this deficit will not necessarily be addressed through randomized strength or metcon programming, which may not offer enough focused posterior chain work.
CrossFit’s generalized programming model is designed to cater to the masses, but it is not well-suited to competitive athletes who require specific programming to address individual deficits. In theory, the CrossFit Journal emphasizes the idea of universal scalability, claiming that all workouts are scalable to different ability levels. While this may work for general fitness purposes, it is not an efficient way to prepare athletes for competition, where individual weaknesses must be addressed head-on.
Competitive CrossFit athletes must excel in specific domains, such as strength (max deadlift, Olympic lifts), endurance (long-distance running or rowing), and gymnastics (handstand push-ups, ring muscle-ups). Achieving success in these areas requires programming tailored to the athlete's deficits rather than broad GPP workouts. For example, an athlete struggling with overhead strength will need concentrated work on overhead pressing and accessory movements for shoulder stability. However, CrossFit’s generalized programming may only include overhead pressing sporadically, with no progression or periodization to ensure long-term gains.
The lack of consistency in addressing individual deficits becomes even more problematic when considering recovery and periodization. Many CrossFit gyms fail to incorporate deload weeks or tapering into their programs, leaving athletes perpetually training at high intensities with little time to recover or address specific areas of weakness. This not only limits athletic development but also increases the risk of overtraining and injury, both of which are prevalent among competitive CrossFit athletes.
Research in strength and conditioning points to the necessity of structured periodization and progressive overload for elite athletes, which is largely absent from traditional CrossFit programming. In CrossFit’s quest for randomness and variety, the important concept of progressive overload is often ignored. Athletes need to gradually increase training intensity or volume over time to continue making gains in strength, power, and endurance. Yet in many CrossFit programs, there is no clear progression, workouts are randomized, and there is little structure to ensure that athletes are making consistent improvements in key performance areas.
The literature also supports the importance of deliberate practice and skill acquisition, particularly for technical lifts and complex gymnastics movements that are common in competitive CrossFit. Research shows that athletes need focused, repetitive practice to improve neuromuscular coordination and develop proficiency in high-skill movements. However, the CrossFit methodology often sacrifices focused skill development for the sake of variety, resulting in athletes who are competent in many areas but excel in none.
To go even further there are studies on periodized programming demonstrate that cycling through phases of hypertrophy, strength, and power development, each with specific goals and intensity levels, is far more effective than random workouts for improving performance. CrossFit’s insistence on constant variation fails to capitalize on this, leading to stagnation or regression in athletes who need consistent, progressive training to reach an elite level.
I love Crossfit as it has given me so much after leaving competitive sport. I can consistently push myself to new heights through informed and optimized training and I feel it would be a disservice to this global group if advancements are never made at its core. The CrossFit methodology, as outlined in the CrossFit Journal, remains rooted in theory, with many foundational principles lacking empirical support. While the GPP model has been successful in creating well-rounded athletes, it falls short when it comes to developing competitive CrossFit athletes who need specialized, periodized training. By shifting to more evidence-based approaches such as individualized programming, structured periodization, and focused recovery strategies. CrossFit can become a more efficient system for preparing athletes for competition.
Resources Utilized:
CrossFit Journal
- Glassman, G. (2002). "Foundations"
- Glassman, G. (2003). "What is Fitness?"
- CrossFit Training Guide (2005). "Theoretical Hierarchy of Development"
- Rippetoe, M. & Kilgore, L. (2006). Practical Programming for Strength Training
- Bompa, T.O. & Buzzichelli, C. (2019). Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training
- Kraemer, W.J., & Zatsiorsky, V.M. (2006). Science and Practice of Strength Training
- Ericsson, K.A. et al. (1993). "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance." Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
- Stone, M.H. et al. (2007). "Periodization: Effects of Manipulating Volume and Intensity." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(3), 835-847.
- Meeusen, R. et al. (2013). "Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of the Overtraining Syndrome." European Journal of Sport Science, 13(1), 1-24.
- Winchester, J.B. et al. (2011). "Eight Weeks of Ballistic Exercise Improves Power Independently of Changes in Strength and Muscle Fiber Type Expression." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(8), 2278-2286.
- Halson, S.L. (2014). "Monitoring Training Load to Understand Fatigue in Athletes." Sports Medicine, 44(S2), 139-147.
No comments:
Post a Comment