I think Glassman is obviously right that for Crossfit's customer base, high intensity is the best bang for your buck. It's perfect for anyone who just wants to be healthy and wants to workout a few times a week. I also think this somehow lead to many in that community attempting to devalue low intensity training, which is obviously valuable and necessary for anyone who higher fitness aspirations.
Could not have said it better tbh. Still many athletes are doing high-intensity only. On the long term this leads to plateaus. A Toyota Prius will never drive faster, no matter how hard you push the gas pedal 😀.
I agree. I think it is very wise from this study and other studies that I have seen to try to incorporate both low intensity and high intensity. I usually do crossfit 3x a week and some type of long cardio at zone 2 twice a week, with the occasional Super high intense training mixed in where I am at max or near max heart rate.
The quote isn’t a training prescription, it’s talking about what performance is impressive. Anyone can train as much low intensity as they have time for. That’s not “impressive.” The impressive part of an athletic performance is the intensity; the peak of the pyramid. But you need the base to support it. The pyramid is only impressive because of how tall it is; no one would be impressed by just the flat first layer of stones sitting in the middle of the desert. But without that first layer, the peak could not exist. And yes even a marathon race is “high intensity;” an athlete running a marathon at race pace is red-lining their anaerobic threshold for 2.5 hours. It’s maybe not high intensity relative to a maximal deadlift but it is pushing their anaerobic threshold body in a different way that is intense relative to its aerobic capacity and lactate clearance. Running a marathon at a low-intensity, casual training pace is not that impressive; running it at a pace that pushes a physiological limit, is.
I think that while you might get more "bang for your buck" with sprint intervals, or more more mitochondria per minute of exercise, you are able to handle less volume overall. It is much more tiring physically and psychologically. And an hour per day of low intensity running plus one 2 hour longer run on the weekend should be manageable for most people (and it is enough low-to-medium intensity exercise). If you're doing sprints, you also have to be careful not to injure yourself. You need to warm up carefully, do pre-activations, etc, otherwise you're much more likely to pull a muscle, which will put you out of commission for a long time.
No injuries when you avoid plants. Any kind of carbs. If you’re fat adapted you have a much more clean energy from fats Save minerals vitamins and water. No injuries for me after the switch. That must be slow. Plants are harmful addictive and cause leaky gut. The first step towards autoimmune diseases. All of them.
As someone who transitioned from Crossfit to basically periodizing my lifting and running, I think long-term it’s better for me now to work submaximally and at low intensity than beating myself up with high intensity via metcons everyday. Not only did it stress my body, it also stressed my mind. Low intensity is boring but my base has never been this wide since adopting this approach. Not to say high intensity doesn’t have its place coz it does but being there often is not sustainable
As a former rower whereby our races are always 2km which take about 6min at elite level. Our best friend was always mileage surprisingly enough. HIIT was great for priming the nervous system but the guys who did the most mileage were always pulling the fastest times generally speaking. Rowing is very similar to crossfit in terms of how the intensity of races feel, lactic acid etc lol just wanted to add out of interest
Yes! And a point a few others have made here, especially as a mum who’s lacking in sleep now, doing more steady state lower intensity is much easier on my body and easier to recover from so I can do more 🙌🏻
This is why I love the concept of relative intensity… You push based on your current physical and psychological limits for that day, month or season of your life and over time your ability to recover and push harder increases. The problem with low intensity is you have to continue to add volume which for some like you who’s a new mom is unrealistic with time constraints. A mix of both is great.
I am a runner. Ideal base training will have a mix of all intensities. Conventional wisdom is to use polarized mix if intensities in base training-lots of really easy running with lots of short bouts of almost maximal effort (8-15s strides, hill sprints, etc). The training then gets more specific as you get towards the race (convert some of the volume into race specific workouts). These findings are quite well supported because runners measure almost everything and we get tested (race) all the time. So this is not about intensity vs volume. You need both. You will not be a fast runner if you run a lot but only slowly. Sprinting is uniqely important as strengh exercise (inprove capacity for running slower), for neuro-muscular coordination (improve running efficiency).
I would love to see the results from incorporating the zone 2 training into a typical crossfit regime. Right now I do a mix of 3 crossfit sessions with 2 zone 2 cardio sessions as I found 5x crossfit per week was super draining and sometimes I would stall for long periods.
Interested in which program you follow. Too many are programming high intensity 3-12 minute metcons every single day or programming strength + metcon. Some of the zone 2 "experts" suggest that three one hour zone 2 sessions a week is the minimum effective dose.
@@RunGSD I kind of follow my own program. I have a garage gym. Typically I will follow the main site wod 3x a week and then 2 90 minute zone 2 cardio sessions. I tried going to a crossfit box but the volume there is so crazy, and they expect you to do it 3 on 1 off, that my body just cannot keep up. They do a Heavy Strength session followed by an intense WOD around that 3-12 minute mark. I don't think you need 3 zone 2 sessions minimum to get an effective dose. A lot of studies on strength and endurance show that the minimum effective dose is MUCH lower than previously assumed. For instance, hypertrophy can occur in as LITTLE as 4 sets per muscle group per week, this is insanely low. I would not believe anyone who says that 2 90 minute zone 2 sessions is not improving my cardio fitness, because my FTP begs to differ. If it was 2 30 minute or less sessions...maybe? But even then I have my doubts. I think what they probably mean to say is 3 sessions might be the "ideal" stimulus perhaps? Which I could probably agree with.
Amazing quality video ! The problem is as always essentialism. Can CrossFit be good for performance, of course. Are you better at CrossFit by doing more WOD… maybe no Is performance CrossFit the same as health CrossFit… A human body get a phisiology that we need to understand to make improvements and also put them in context of the objectives. To optimize any type of gains to their full potential you need a good amount of stimulus with enough rest to overcompensate and also a non-random structure programming to achieve that optimally. Context is key
I'd like to see some research on injury rates for each of these trying types. That may be a factor as people plan their training. As an older runner that is a big concern for me.
There’s substantial data on injury rates in CrossFit compared to other sports. Check out this video: ruclips.net/video/hZAonq_RBuY/видео.htmlsi=GGNR0XgOR9l8GBJS. Injury rates in CrossFit are generally lower than in weight-bearing sports like running, likely due to the repetitive nature and high eccentric load in those sports.
The problem with Glassman's statement on intensity is that intensity also determines the kind of adaptation one gets (specificity of training). So it's not "high intensity better than low intensity". It depends on the kind of adaptation one is seeking. For certain adaptations moderate intensity is better than high intensity
Training long enough, everyone will reach some kind of plateau. Question is how to break it. For most CrossFit athletes, including some session at lower intensity higher volume might be the answer.
Intensity over volume for quick gains yes, not for long term fitness. That said, you have elite athletes who are able to do insane volume at high-intensities all the time. This will obviously also help to build elite fitness. Not everyone is made like that though.
Yeah, but I would argue that it is more than just doing recovery sessions as LISS. Adding 2-3 dedicated LISS sesions to your training schedule to really build that aerobic engine.
This is an excellent question of which I do not know the answer of. I guess that the rest periods are not included, it’s not defined in the methods Of the paper. If you think about it, this defo skews the data because I would certainly include rest times as training time during SIT 😀
After a year with crossfit i went from 45 to 59 vo2 max with 3 session a week. But the strange part is that i’m 35 and my heart rate go max at 175bpm and i give like 90-100% of power in metcon or for time 😅
There's so much variance in CrossFit programming from gym to gym, but It's really trendy to program like everyone is competing and making pepe do strength and short metcons every single day. That was never the case with original CrossFit which had people go heavy independent of metcons and also programmed 5&10ks and it's no wonder why people are burning out lately. Go long now and then.
I like this research article and it has some important points. How confident are you in asserting the comparability of CrossFit and HIIT training? While I acknowledge the similarities between the two, CrossFit does incorporates a wider variety of functional movements and typically involves longer time domains than traditional HIIT protocols. I feel that they are not a good parallel. In your opinion, do you consider the differences between CrossFit and HIIT protocols not significant?
You make a great point. While HIIT and SIT in these studies aren't exactly CrossFit workouts-since they're typically done on a bike or other erg-there are definitely parallels to the metabolic conditioning (metcon) workouts in CF classes, especially from a cardiovascular perspective. Most metcons push well above the anaerobic threshold, tapping into anaerobic energy systems, so they align more closely with SIT. I agree that these are somewhat assumptions, as there's a lack of long-term data specifically on functional fitness workouts and their effects on cardiovascular capacity. However, we’ve observed relatively average VO2 max levels in elite CrossFit athletes, which aligns with the findings I discussed in the video.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I think Glassman is obviously right that for Crossfit's customer base, high intensity is the best bang for your buck. It's perfect for anyone who just wants to be healthy and wants to workout a few times a week.
I also think this somehow lead to many in that community attempting to devalue low intensity training, which is obviously valuable and necessary for anyone who higher fitness aspirations.
Could not have said it better tbh. Still many athletes are doing high-intensity only. On the long term this leads to plateaus. A Toyota Prius will never drive faster, no matter how hard you push the gas pedal 😀.
I agree. I think it is very wise from this study and other studies that I have seen to try to incorporate both low intensity and high intensity. I usually do crossfit 3x a week and some type of long cardio at zone 2 twice a week, with the occasional Super high intense training mixed in where I am at max or near max heart rate.
The quote isn’t a training prescription, it’s talking about what performance is impressive. Anyone can train as much low intensity as they have time for. That’s not “impressive.” The impressive part of an athletic performance is the intensity; the peak of the pyramid. But you need the base to support it. The pyramid is only impressive because of how tall it is; no one would be impressed by just the flat first layer of stones sitting in the middle of the desert. But without that first layer, the peak could not exist.
And yes even a marathon race is “high intensity;” an athlete running a marathon at race pace is red-lining their anaerobic threshold for 2.5 hours. It’s maybe not high intensity relative to a maximal deadlift but it is pushing their anaerobic threshold body in a different way that is intense relative to its aerobic capacity and lactate clearance. Running a marathon at a low-intensity, casual training pace is not that impressive; running it at a pace that pushes a physiological limit, is.
I think that while you might get more "bang for your buck" with sprint intervals, or more more mitochondria per minute of exercise, you are able to handle less volume overall. It is much more tiring physically and psychologically. And an hour per day of low intensity running plus one 2 hour longer run on the weekend should be manageable for most people (and it is enough low-to-medium intensity exercise). If you're doing sprints, you also have to be careful not to injure yourself. You need to warm up carefully, do pre-activations, etc, otherwise you're much more likely to pull a muscle, which will put you out of commission for a long time.
Yes. I’d like to include variation in training intensity. Which is what most programs and affiliates are missing.
No injuries when you avoid plants. Any kind of carbs. If you’re fat adapted you have a much more clean energy from fats Save minerals vitamins and water. No injuries for me after the switch. That must be slow. Plants are harmful addictive and cause leaky gut. The first step towards autoimmune diseases. All of them.
@@wod-science 👍 I would agree that that's the best approach.
As someone who transitioned from Crossfit to basically periodizing my lifting and running, I think long-term it’s better for me now to work submaximally and at low intensity than beating myself up with high intensity via metcons everyday.
Not only did it stress my body, it also stressed my mind.
Low intensity is boring but my base has never been this wide since adopting this approach. Not to say high intensity doesn’t have its place coz it does but being there often is not sustainable
As a former rower whereby our races are always 2km which take about 6min at elite level. Our best friend was always mileage surprisingly enough. HIIT was great for priming the nervous system but the guys who did the most mileage were always pulling the fastest times generally speaking. Rowing is very similar to crossfit in terms of how the intensity of races feel, lactic acid etc lol just wanted to add out of interest
Yes! And a point a few others have made here, especially as a mum who’s lacking in sleep now, doing more steady state lower intensity is much easier on my body and easier to recover from so I can do more 🙌🏻
This is why I love the concept of relative intensity… You push based on your current physical and psychological limits for that day, month or season of your life and over time your ability to recover and push harder increases. The problem with low intensity is you have to continue to add volume which for some like you who’s a new mom is unrealistic with time constraints. A mix of both is great.
thank you for all the work you do!
I am a runner. Ideal base training will have a mix of all intensities. Conventional wisdom is to use polarized mix if intensities in base training-lots of really easy running with lots of short bouts of almost maximal effort (8-15s strides, hill sprints, etc). The training then gets more specific as you get towards the race (convert some of the volume into race specific workouts).
These findings are quite well supported because runners measure almost everything and we get tested (race) all the time.
So this is not about intensity vs volume. You need both. You will not be a fast runner if you run a lot but only slowly. Sprinting is uniqely important as strengh exercise (inprove capacity for running slower), for neuro-muscular coordination (improve running efficiency).
Bang-on. Thank you for the insight.
Very clear and interesting video! I love progressively learning more about optimal training protocols (for free!?) and adapting my own. Great stuff!
That’s the goal!
Appreciating the summaries.
Well played mate, what a great video !!! Keep em coming 👏👏
Thanks. Appreciate that from you.
Thanks for the informative presentation as always
Would love to see an Interview with you and Chris Hinshaw - both of you are great to listen to !
Thank you - great suggestion. I might hop-on a podcast with him one day.
@ that would be amazing , hopefully it happens ! Take care and keep up with the amazing work and content you and your team upload 🙏
I would love to see the results from incorporating the zone 2 training into a typical crossfit regime. Right now I do a mix of 3 crossfit sessions with 2 zone 2 cardio sessions as I found 5x crossfit per week was super draining and sometimes I would stall for long periods.
Me too :). Super curious about the results. I think you are on the right path training-wise though!
Interested in which program you follow. Too many are programming high intensity 3-12 minute metcons every single day or programming strength + metcon. Some of the zone 2 "experts" suggest that three one hour zone 2 sessions a week is the minimum effective dose.
@@RunGSD I kind of follow my own program. I have a garage gym. Typically I will follow the main site wod 3x a week and then 2 90 minute zone 2 cardio sessions. I tried going to a crossfit box but the volume there is so crazy, and they expect you to do it 3 on 1 off, that my body just cannot keep up. They do a Heavy Strength session followed by an intense WOD around that 3-12 minute mark. I don't think you need 3 zone 2 sessions minimum to get an effective dose. A lot of studies on strength and endurance show that the minimum effective dose is MUCH lower than previously assumed. For instance, hypertrophy can occur in as LITTLE as 4 sets per muscle group per week, this is insanely low. I would not believe anyone who says that 2 90 minute zone 2 sessions is not improving my cardio fitness, because my FTP begs to differ. If it was 2 30 minute or less sessions...maybe? But even then I have my doubts. I think what they probably mean to say is 3 sessions might be the "ideal" stimulus perhaps? Which I could probably agree with.
Amazing quality video !
The problem is as always essentialism. Can CrossFit be good for performance, of course. Are you better at CrossFit by doing more WOD… maybe no
Is performance CrossFit the same as health CrossFit…
A human body get a phisiology that we need to understand to make improvements and also put them in context of the objectives.
To optimize any type of gains to their full potential you need a good amount of stimulus with enough rest to overcompensate and also a non-random structure programming to achieve that optimally.
Context is key
I'd like to see some research on injury rates for each of these trying types. That may be a factor as people plan their training. As an older runner that is a big concern for me.
There’s substantial data on injury rates in CrossFit compared to other sports. Check out this video: ruclips.net/video/hZAonq_RBuY/видео.htmlsi=GGNR0XgOR9l8GBJS.
Injury rates in CrossFit are generally lower than in weight-bearing sports like running, likely due to the repetitive nature and high eccentric load in those sports.
@6:40 im rooting for the sprints
The problem with Glassman's statement on intensity is that intensity also determines the kind of adaptation one gets (specificity of training). So it's not "high intensity better than low intensity". It depends on the kind of adaptation one is seeking. For certain adaptations moderate intensity is better than high intensity
And I also think I reached a plateau going high intensity all the time.
Training long enough, everyone will reach some kind of plateau. Question is how to break it. For most CrossFit athletes, including some session at lower intensity higher volume might be the answer.
Great video, but would'nt the quote "intensity over volume" be incorrect for the jist of this situation?
Intensity over volume for quick gains yes, not for long term fitness. That said, you have elite athletes who are able to do insane volume at high-intensities all the time. This will obviously also help to build elite fitness. Not everyone is made like that though.
Basically train hard with SIT and HIIT, and recover by doing LISS, then do another HIIT or SIT.
Yeah, but I would argue that it is more than just doing recovery sessions as LISS. Adding 2-3 dedicated LISS sesions to your training schedule to really build that aerobic engine.
Great video! Does “per training hour” include the prescribed rest periods for HIIT and sprint intervals?
This is an excellent question of which I do not know the answer of. I guess that the rest periods are not included, it’s not defined in the methods
Of the paper.
If you think about it, this defo skews the data because I would certainly include rest times as training time during SIT 😀
After a year with crossfit i went from 45 to 59 vo2 max with 3 session a week.
But the strange part is that i’m 35 and my heart rate go max at 175bpm and i give like 90-100% of power in metcon or for time 😅
Cool! How was the VO2 measured?
@ i use the armband polar verity sense
There's so much variance in CrossFit programming from gym to gym, but
It's really trendy to program like everyone is competing and making pepe do strength and short metcons every single day. That was never the case with original CrossFit which had people go heavy independent of metcons and also programmed 5&10ks and it's no wonder why people are burning out lately. Go long now and then.
Agreed. Well put.
Quality content
Merci!
Polarized Training
Yes
I like this research article and it has some important points. How confident are you in asserting the comparability of CrossFit and HIIT training? While I acknowledge the similarities between the two, CrossFit does incorporates a wider variety of functional movements and typically involves longer time domains than traditional HIIT protocols. I feel that they are not a good parallel. In your opinion, do you consider the differences between CrossFit and HIIT protocols not significant?
You make a great point.
While HIIT and SIT in these studies aren't exactly CrossFit workouts-since they're typically done on a bike or other erg-there are definitely parallels to the metabolic conditioning (metcon) workouts in CF classes, especially from a cardiovascular perspective. Most metcons push well above the anaerobic threshold, tapping into anaerobic energy systems, so they align more closely with SIT. I agree that these are somewhat assumptions, as there's a lack of long-term data specifically on functional fitness workouts and their effects on cardiovascular capacity. However, we’ve observed relatively average VO2 max levels in elite CrossFit athletes, which aligns with the findings I discussed in the video.