Видео

Hard to compare specific training with non specific training. Why was no specific zone 2 training incorporated? And also what is your definition of zone 2, as it varies a lot between philosophy and sport?

If you are doing a 2.0 version of this, I think two things would be interesting. 1. What about longer duration tests, i.e. the longform version of the FTP Test like 60 Minutes. I think one of the holes of "classical" CrossFit training is, that intermediate athletes crash if a training of steady state work is longer then 30-40 Minutes, no matter if its RPE 4-5 or 6-7 (my expierience). So to see if one version is more effectiv for sport like hyrox events then the other. 2. I would be interested in seeing the effects in body composistion, i.e. fatloss. Would be interesting to see, if other then performance indicators, one kind of trainng it more effectiv then the other for people trying to loose fat and get ripped, since that is a reason for a lot of people to start exercising.

Very well designed study and great effort, thank you!

Would be interesting to see results if you matched training time instead of TRIMP

Interesting, thanks for sharing the results.

Great study! Could it be that the study was not long enough to detect a signal? I’ve heard mitochondrial improvements happen at a longer time scale. I hope you can redo this for a 6-month period.

According to the CF doctrine, the "traditional CF group" should have improved more than the group that had only two high intensity sessions and 3 moderate intensity sessions. The Glassman groupies won't be happy

To what extent do you think the results of your study are driven by better recovery between high intensity sessions for the Zone 2 group? Lesser volume of high intensity training during the week should lead to a better ability to execute those sessions well, but potentially a worsened ability to perform in multiple high intensity sessions in a row as per the testing data. I wonder this because there seemed to be no real impact on the FTP test, suggesting that the Zone 2 work had no specific benefit to crossfit performance. Very interesting work, and I think it's awesome that you're sharing the data so freely! It's nice to see science conducted in this way

Could it be the case, that all the zone 2 benefits (mitochondrial adaptations) take months or years? I think one thing is a take away from the study: the TRIMP works. 😂

I think we can learn to use these different styles through out a year. Do 12 weeks commercial and then deload with less stressful zone 2 type for 4 weeks.

The zone 2 looks like they got 1%+ more than the commercial group. That's not statistically big but looks good to me.

Could this be explained by the fact that in both groups, participants did more then enough exercise to lead to improvement and therefore any extra leads to no extra results?

Super Nice study!! What about the interference effect?

Thanks for your work and research 🔬

Really surprised that there is no clear difference in FTP which makes me wonder how the results would look like if the zone 2 volume would be higher or the timeframe would have been longer. Are you planning a zone 2 project 2.0 with a dialed setup? You could argue that this zone 2 approach was not effective in building their FTP, as long as there is no clear difference between the groups? Furthermore I would be curious to see if the zone 2 group is able to recover more quickly (longer term) e.g. rated on perceived soreness/days to recover after the testing. For a clear FTP post testing picture the rest period after the crossfit total might also need to be lengthened - heavy legs imho interfere quite a lot with a 20min all out test.

For the beginners at 22:18 how do you build a better aerobic base?

Nicely done! 👏

I didn’t see my Cindy results on there :( I sold my soul for it both times

Great video! In my experience, generic “competitive” CrossFit programs favour the delivery-limited athlete. As someone who started fitness in my late 20s, I feel that I’m limited on both sides. I don’t have the strength to power through Fran in <3 min, and I don’t have the endurance to power through a 18min 5k row. I’m in that <3w/kg but also <26bmi. My suspicion is that I’m in the tall part of the bell curve. The (fairly polluted) data from BTWB, I think, supports this. TTT talks a lot about limiters and wod-science does as well. Setting aside skills - they’re easy to identify and work on even if improvements are hard - for the average >50th percentile athlete, I think it’s easy to get caught up and decide that one thing or another is a limiter and overdo it. On the other hand, taking a mesocycle to focus on cardio, gymnastics, or strength is a good plan as long as you continue to do some lower volume in the other areas - I believe that’s roughly the wod-science “Hybrid” approach. With that all said, the answer for *most* people is to train a variety of modalities, unless you’re confident that one aspect of your training is leaving you stuck (eg Jack Farlow, Jayson Hopper, and Bron don’t need to be doing air bike sprints too often). I’m interested to hear how I’m wrong! 😆

THANKS to all the volunteers for your dedication! THANKS to Klaus, head of programming at WOD-Science and overall an awesome dude :) --> What should we study next? 👇👇

I really appreciate your scientific outreach in your videos! Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Cheers !

You have my vote too take over the running of crossfit

While not loved by much of the community the Sanctional qualifications for the 2019 games offered a real potential for year round coverage of the sport. It was really the first year I followed qualification closely as the tactics to qualify were fascinating. Which event suits the athlete better or skipping events to be fresher later in the season and so on. That and the almost random, open source social media driven coverage helped a buzz. With a properly managed hq media arm there could be so much to work with. The open, regionals, games structure isn’t necessarily bad, but promotion of local competition can only promote interest and hence participation. If anything the games needs to promote membership in boxes.

Hyrox has even more shoddy movement standards and judging standards, so I don't think that's the real issue. The real issue is private equity purchased a 10% margin business and expected it to be a 30% margin business. So they want their money. And the Games is expensive to do properly.

I love that you get backlash for just actually studying things and not just believing commonly held beliefs 😂😂

Yeeeees it needs a governing body!

Love my local Crossfit box/community but CrossFit HQ needs to change. Its planning and organisation is shoddy, its judging standards are shoddy, its movement standards are shoddy. The whole thing is a disaster waiting to happen (again). If you don't believe me take a look at the Games Event from recently (2022?) that involved a heavy sled push combined with sets of double kettlebell clean and jerk (long-cycle) then watch Denis Vasilev's critique (he is a kettlebell sport athlete and previous world champion). OK I would not expect a CrossFit generalist to have perfect technique compared to a specialist like him but a KB is not a barbell or a dumbbell and if you try to rack them like a barbell you are asking for a serious, even lifechanging, shoulder injury .

CrossFit has proven two things: 1) the underlying methodology of the training modality is sound. Whether it’s branded “CrossFit” or some other title is irrelevant. However, that said, there does need to be a governing body deciding - as Brent Fikowski and PFAA board members say, - standards of movement and protocols for safety. 2) “CrossFit” the company has proven they cannot be trusted with either organizational leadership, or athletes’ lives. They have repeatedly violated basic trust and professionalism standards and it’s not clear how they could continue to define standards and protocols from that position. The best option would be for the brand to be sold to another owner, - someone like a Mark Cuban - the entire leadership team offloaded, and the hedge fund investors bought out. The current situation is untenable.

As an outside observer, CrossFit appears to be riddled with issues: dead swimmer, PED’s, bad judging, downright dangerous exercise choice (oly lifts for endurance), hilarious bike crashes, and so on. The sport creates some beasts, but the human wreckage has to be high.

There’s no disagreement that CrossFit needs to have a governing body, but as long as CrossFit HQ maintains a death grip on the Games and by extension the branding (and all signs say they will, because private equity and egos win), the best case is that we’ll have a few splinter orgs for a while until one wins out. The PFAA is in desperate need of a governing body for the sport so that their athletes make plans that don’t involve CrossFitHQ.

The fact that the structure of the season has changed every year for the last many years makes the sport seem less legitimate. I'm all for continuous improvement and trying new things. But the first Games was almost 20 years ago and they still haven't settled on the right way to format the season.

great video. Agree complete with it. I'm more in favor of the second option at the moment. Gomar, what are your thoughts?

I agree, CrossFit needs organisation. Like every other sports you have first division athletes who can compete through the year in order to participate at the games, than you have the others divisions with small and local competitions. If everything was structured it would interest more people and make the sport great again

I also think the Games being the pinnacle, without a clear path there, interest in competitions will wane.

I believe the Federations will have this covered, SHOULD Crossfit Inc. somehow die off. Its nice to have a single governing entity that decides the directions, but if that entity fails to incorporate urgently required changes or is just "in it for the money", affiliates and athletes eventually have to move away from that entity. Let's see if that will happen.

crossfit are too greedy for that approach they want everything under their own name

Thank you for the Video!

Love this kind of analysis. Nice to see some data supporting how different the events are on metabolic demands.

This might sound silly but can TRIMP be used for strength/power/speed etc sessions? Or used only for Aerobic/Vo2max/conditioning sessions?

Great info. super interesting. I did get a little confused because you basically explained the same thing twice? Kind off anyway. Leading me to think there were 3 training phases instead of 2. Also, you could have just said they all did 2h extra training 🤷‍♂️🙂 PS: the pxl.to links don't work.

0:08 lol ... but yes indeed

This information jives with my experience with a watch. I have a PPG tracker in a set of earbuds and I’m wondering if either of you have tried that style in comparison to wrist trackers. It loses HR tracking far less frequently than the watch, but it still struggles when I flush eg strict HSPU, straining through a squat or deadlift.

When you like before watching

Looking for next studies to find optimal training time :)

What should people do who already train a lot, 20 hours a week?)

Or, just train 4 or 5 times a week.

Telling CrossFit people to do more cardio. That’s brave. Coincidentally, Concept2 has their holiday challenge on; my cardio always peaks at the end. Does the stimulus of the cardio matter? Working with weights messes me up even at reasonable numbers (grace @50% clean+jerk), but my 2k row is pretty decent.

A good morning present from wod-science! More fitness videos!

I find this concept of continuing interest. Would you recommend something like a 3x a week crossfit, 2x a week long cardio sessions vs a 5x a week crossfit schedule? I didn't even think about the injury risk that comes with doing crossfit nearly everyday.

Does high intensity always mean high lactate? Surely the intensity is versus the time domain so eg a marathon row, Murph or Chad is not high lactate but still high intensity?