ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
How To Improve CrossFit Performance 2x Faster (our NEW RESEARCH)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2024
- ▶️ Join our HYBRID Programming // pxl.to/builtbysciencehybrid74 use the code ''BUILTBYSCIENCE15'' at check-out for 15% off (limited time available)
▶️ Create and Sell Programs online // pxl.to/strivee74 use the code “WODSCIENCE10” for 10% off of your subscription.
-
I present unpublished results from our own study at wod-sciece, aimed at minimizing the interference between strength and conditioning in CrossFit participants. In this video, I outline the purpose, setup, and key findings of our study.
This is the first time we ever publish these data, you saw it first on youtube!
-
If you liked the video and want to see more please consider SUBSCRIBING to the channel pxl.to/subscribewodscience
FOLLOW US for FREE evidence based education on Fitness and Nutrition.
/ wod_science
/ wod_science
www.wod-science.com
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - Intro
01:05 - The interference between strength and conditioning
03:08 - Structure of a typical CrossFit session
04:00 - Separation of strength and endurance: the Rugby study
05:00 - Our hybrid study: Set-up
06:50 - Our hybrid study: Testing
08:24 - Our hybrid study: Testing
09:10 - Our hybrid study: The data
13:05 - Applications for you as an athlete
14:25 - Limitations of the study
16:20 - Sign-up for our Hybrid season programming
17:20 - Outro
#crossfit #hybrid #science
The programming in CrossFit gyms that structures a daily one hour workout with a strength piece and then a metcon is an adulterated form of CrossFit. It's really just a normal strength and conditioning workout dressed up as CrossFit. Unfortunately, it's often poor strength training and weak met con work. If you look at earlier CF programming, high end strength work was separated from the met cons as well as the monostructural endurance pieces.
I know, you are right. Does not take away the fact that most CF affiliates do not program like that and that 87% of wod-science followers train like group A. We wanted to do a relevant study.
@@wod-science
What would be a practical way to train like group B, if your CF gym was programmed like group A?
Would it be like
Week 1: go to CF session 4 times, and one endurance session
Week 2: do strength/hypertrophy/weightlifting session 4-5 times
?
Great stuff! Super interesting study! Thank you for just doing this kind of thing and just throwing it out there.
Appreciate that ser. Showing these data open to the public is very important to us. Happy to take all the critisism (in other comments). We can only learn from that.
Muy buen estudio, es informacion muy util para tener en cuenta a la hora de diseñar o corregir nuestras metodologías de entrenamiento. Se agradece mucho que se mencionen las limitaciones del estudio y de donde pueden venir algunos errores.
Fan de tu trabajo, muchas gracias.
CrossFit has always preached doing heavy or pure strength days with no metcons. Most gyms just don’t do it
Yes, exactly. Based on the comments here and on the IG post - we will call group A 'commercial CF' in stead of 'traditional CF'.
But the traditional CF recommendation is very low frequency (one heavy day every 7-10 days) on rotating movements. Not as frequent as in this study
@@samuele.marcora oh yes i realize that but theyve always said seperate them because youll get better outcomes and be able to give more to each one when done seperately
The problem is that a lot of inner city CF gyms have limited or none open gym space due to high rents. This means that for a lot of Crossfitters there’s no room for doing strength sessions in gym peak times.
Great study, thanks for putting this together 👏
Appreciate that.
So better to do the double sessione AM Strenght PM Cardio/Metcon, I knew that! Thank you for confirmation
Next study You guys should compare strength and metcon together against strength in one day and metabolic on another. Awesome job thank you
Yes, this is an option. Less interesting overall, because more difficult to implement for affiliates.
@@wod-science the majority of the affiliated do strength and metcon together. A small part do the "old way", tha mean one day strength and one day metcon. Compare the old with the new it will be very interesting.
Excellent work. Thanks for presenting.
Crossover is not a limitation for a training study. You did a good design
I'll try to apply this studies with my clients and see what happens. Thank you 🙏🏻
Super cool. Good luck, let me know how it goes.
I love that you're making this data accessible and easy to understand for everyone!
One question sprang to mind:
Why didnt you compare a set-up where you do 2 metcons a week and 2 strength sessions a week?
Instead of either doing both in one session or only one of them per week, I mean.
Because 1/ it is a less extreme version of hybrid training. 2/ affiliates can't really implement this for their members as some members who only come 2-3 times a week on the same day would always do the same type of program. With our approach this is not the case.
I love your work and the scientific way to focus on training... I think that based on the results presented, it would not be accurate to say that Program B improves fitness levels by double. Here’s why:
NON SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS: The improvements in the Crossfit total (+0.8%) and Fran time (+2.8%) were not statistically significant. This means these SMALL changes could be due to random variation rather than a true effect of the program.
SMALL SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS: While there were significant improvements in the clean & jerk (3%) and rowing (1.8%), these percentages are modest and do not reflect a doubling of performance or fitness levels.
STRANGE SIGNIFICANT RESULT: The 19% increase in back squat repetitions is significant and substantial, but for me is a "strange significant result," suggesting it might be an outlier or due to factors not directly related to overall fitness improvements... This result is THE FACTOR THAT EXPLAIN THE DOUBLE fitness improvement and that conslussion you know IS NOT PRECISE.
My conclusion is that BOTH TRAINING PROGRAMS result in an improvement in physical performance. Program B demonstrates SMALLS statistically significant improvements in certain performance metrics, particularly in the clean & jerk and rowing. However, these improvements are MODEST and SPECIFIC to certain exercises rather than indicative of a doubling of overall fitness levels. The large increase in back squat repetitions appears STRANGE and for me warrants further investigation to understand its implications.
My humble interpretation of results is: while Program B can be considered effective in improving specific aspects of fitness, it DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM that it doubles overall fitness levels.
My interpretation as a COMPETITOR COACH, would be that to AVOID INTERFERENCE EFFECT we have to separate strength training and metabolic conditioning by 6-8 hours, per Mujika and Pallarés, to reduce interference. Competitors should do 2-3 sessions a day for optimized strength gains, enhanced conditioning, reduced fatigue, better recovery, and improved overall performance... I think separating 6-8 hours strength and metcon sessions is sufficient to avoid interference.
My interpretation a BOX OWNER, "in my experience" when we conduct training sessions with only one component (crossfit style, ex deadlift 1,1,1,1,1,1,1 or row 5k), athletes tend to get bored and do not enjoy the programming. However, when we include two components (strength & metcon or metcon & skills...) in the sessions, even though it may cause some interference, athletes find the programming more engaging. From my point of view this increases their satisfaction and adherence to the program. Balancing the effectiveness of the training with the participants' enjoyment is crucial, as long-term adherence is essential for success in fitness. Therefore, I think incorporating multiple components can be beneficial in maintaining athletes' motivation and commitment.
Thanks for your elaborate comment.
Your interpretation as a box owner vs. competitor coach is spot on. I agree fully. Exercise adherence is super important, and you'll get higher adherence by combining both strength and wods in one session in a typical affiliate.
We have effect sizes in the table of the manuscript that we will publish online in the comming months. The between group effects of the significant ones are actually all medium or above - so meaningful statistically (!).
Total fitness inceased by ca. 5% in the TRAD group and 10% in the Hybrid group, that is a doubling.
It would be interesting to compare the retention data of gyms with the segmented classes (?15% of CrossFit gyms) versus retention data of those delivering strength+WOD classes. I think Chris Hinshaw on Jason Khalipa’s interview made a good point that if CrossFit boxes offered Hyrox/hybrid focus, retention and motivation may improve because the everyday athlete would have something very exciting to work towards. Also, what was the rest time between CrossFit Total and Fran? And the rest time between C&J and row? Also, would a control be “no exercise” or “the government recommendation” ie. walking and resistance? Another question… sorry, CrossFit athletes are used to video-ing themselves, why not eliminate self-reported and just have them submit their videos? And then we can hyper-analyse their squat depths too! 😂
Thank you for this interesting study!
For higher volume training with multiple session per day: Why do you suggest to do to the Skill/Strength in the morning and Conditioning in the evening? Does it have an impact to do it in that order?
Yes, that is what I'd suggest. Order probably not that important, little evidence on order effects.
First of all thank you for your great content and sharing your knowledge. Just a quick question. Can i get likewise progress doing pure conditioning (Zone 2 or row Intervalls) AM and strength PM?
I do not know for sure, but the rugby study presented in this video suggests that 6h in between session is sufficient to limit interference.
@@wod-science 6h in b/w sessions limited the interference for strength adaptations, but for VO2max 24h b/w sessions was more beneficial. There was no statistical difference for VO2max b/w the 0h and 6h groups.
Original crossfit methodology (as I understand it) prescribed a heavy day once every 7-10 days (someone correct me if I'm off on the frequency). Would you consider studying different frequencies of strength only training? From my experience conditioning falls away more rapidly than strength, and so splitting the focus by week is not as optimal as (for example) training with a dedicated strength focus only every few days (1-2 per week or fortnight) and putting more focus into conditioning
Well thought out. Absolutely an option. As indicated by the rugby study in the video - as long as your strength and conditioning are separated by 6h, you are probably good.
I really appreciate your study and the takeaways involved.
I just want to point out that, especially in purely metcon works, such as Fran, the improvement may have been due to the adjustments in the workout approach like more optimal division of the reps and allocation of rest and transitions between the exercises.
Re-testing a workout could often lead to an improvement without any variations in fitness levels.
Btw I would suggest to include some gymnastics volume in the next study to test an overall CrossFit performance.
True, but this test bias would be the same for group A and B no?
@@wod-science exactly i agree. How can we say that the members of group B improved because of the training method rather than a greater ability to interpret the workout, then?
I'm not trying to invalidate your study just to be clear.
I am genuinely super interested in this kind of research. Not to mention that I'm training CrossFit in a more Hybrid way and I would be super happy to know that I adopted a more effective methodology.
Hope to enrich the discussion...again, thank you to spread so much information.
We can't, that is a limitation of NOT doing a crossover design. Not much to do about that unfortunately.
Love your work champ - so, more-or-less, strength only for week 1 and metcons & endurance for week 2 and repeat (forever), yes? Or, for advanced athletes, strength in am and metcons / endurance in the pm should do the same trick, yes?
Exactly Shane. Try it, it's sth different and really works.
Personally, I find that 2x strength days + 2x cardio days + 1 ‘crossover’ day + 2 days off, per week, is the ultimate balance. Speaking as a non-pro who can manage 7-10 hours per week.
Makes complete sense!
1 Strength + 1 Cardio + 2 CrossOver + 1 Sports day it is a better option!!
I think as with most things, “it depends.” On the individual’s weaknesses, resources (especially time) and goals. If the person has a n important goal of competing in Crossfit then period of building base endurance and max strength separated in one if the ways suggested in the video, and then adding in higher cardio intensities and muscular endurance, and as.competition/season approaches more mixed modality workouts that resemble the anticipated competition workouts. For someone not competing in Crossfit or similar, the mixed workouts could be a much smaller part of the total mix.
Great video!
Now that we have a good idea that spattering training styles is the right idea, I wonder what the ideal time solid would be? Could it be that strength training should be done for 2 weeks and then metcons should be done for 1 week?
Seems like a good approach, defo when your weakness is stength.
I feel like this are well known facts in fitness: Train strength and hypertrophic activitys 1st, then conditioning. That safes Frequence and Volume
Maybe in Fitness, but never shown in CrossFit.
I would be interested in the results of your drop outs and the stats on them too.
Because I think there's a reason commercial gyms have that programming structure: it's because there's alot of people who don't attend regularly, who are recovering from injury or being sick, come back from holiday, or just new...
and in that commercial setting of group classes, coaches think it's better to give everyone a little of everything. I'd imagine if one of these drop ins comes to the middle of a strength week and gets only that, they'll feel lost and like they're just wasting time and money and are more likely to drop out all together.
So if you have a random person who's not the 6 year experienced crossfitter who religiously trains, which approach to programming is more effective and is there one at all?
Plus ofc with selling your own program with a hybrid programming approach it seems like a conflict of interest.
True, but that was not the aim of the study. What works best for CrossFit affiliates is sth they have to decide themselves. I generally agree with your point.
We provide evidence to our programming - why you see this as a problem?
Congratulations on your study. It's very far from my field, but I don't see any serious methodological issue. There are some obvious limitations like the ones you pointed out, but I'm interested in one possible limitation that you didn't (or did I miss it?). The post training test for the traditional group was the same as the one for the hybrid group, or was the traditional group tested with strength and metabolic in the same session and the hybrid group only strenght in one session and then only metabolic in another session?
Tests were exactly the same between groups.
One thing, that immediately came to mind was the lack of weightlifting practice.
Going full weeks without doing them would probably be a bad idea for intermediate and advanced athletes or were they included in the weeks "without" strength training in form of a metcon?
Also note worthy, no gymnastics were tested.
Fran includes 45 pull-ups, so gymnastics was tested.
One week off of a movement does not decrease performance. A plethora of data in other studies show this. So I do not think that is a problem, also not in more novice atheltes.
That said, novice athletes will improve just as good by doing programming from group A. So it does make sense as an affiliate to just program group A from them.
@@wod-science Damn, of course, there are pull ups 😅🤣
Let's ignore that part for a moment.
"One week off of a movement does not decrease performance."
But it is not one week of, it's 4 weeks of 8.
Where does something like muscular endurance fall into this? Or WODs which are focusing on muscular endurance but are raising your heart frequency too?
We tried testing for muscular endurance via the all-out back squat test. Improved the most in the B group.
Very interesting, small group, but shoulder we all change the approach of our training or use it for overcoming plateaus with adding some new stimulus? PS: I would prefer to hear your videos without the low volume music … - but keep going please 🏋️
Not necessarily a new stimulus, rather differentially structured as the people trained in group B.
Would you be able to make a video on military training I’m really struggling on how to balance strength and cardio and specificity to the job.
That would be way out of my area of expertise. :)
@@wod-science Haha no worries
Not only a really interesting study, but I thought it was well-designed and well-explained in the video! Thanks for your work.
Perhaps you covered this in the paper itself, but do you and your co-authors have any ideas why the "hybrid" model was more effective?
On a molecular level high-load contractions (strength) block pathways involved in adaptations to low-load contractions (endurance). Can't explain in one comment - will have to make a seprate vid about it :).
@@wod-science Very interesting! I look forward to the full video 😀
Why not splitting conditioning and strength by day for the beginner to intermediate athletes? so Day A Strength, Day B Conditioning, Day C Strength, Day D Conditioning, etc.
Possible, but we wanted to do a more extreme hybrid protocol in our study set-up. Separating the sessions by week.
How do you think this style of training fits into a macro cycle of a year, where you would focus on hypertrophy, strength, power and endurance in different meso cycles? Curious how this style over a longer period of time would fit into a traditional macro cycle from the strength and conditioning literature.
Great question. Pretty simple, you just put more emphasis on the aspect of focus during the mesocycle. For instance, out of 2 weeks, 1.5 week hypertrophy and 0.5 week metcon. Or 1.5 week power/weighlifting and 0.5 week metcon etc... This style of training fits very well into adjusting a macrocycle I think.
So to summarize is alternate one week of focused strength training and another week of ,metcon type of workouts?
That is the summary indeed - see our sample hybrid weeks how we would structure it.
strivee.app/marketplace/plan/64nlZbj4TjSv1bseauJu
Hello, i really like your work and i find it nice that you came with a significative result, but your tests are biased toward strength and only a very fast wod to assess Crossfit progress is a little bit narrow
Yes, that is what we chose. No methodology is perfect and this is what we thought was feasible for our subjects to do.
According to you, doing strength training one day and WODs the next, and so on, can have the same effect as alternating weeks of strength training and WODs as in the study? And if the answer is no, why is it better to alternate weeks rather than days?
Yes I would think it would have the same effect, but obviously not directly tested in this study. If it suits you better to train like that, go for it.
How do you implement this in parts of the season where your weakness (strength/endurance/skill) is 60+% of the volume? Since one week might only have enough volume for 2 or 3 training days?
Excellent question. You just train 1.5 week on your weakness(es) specifically and do general stuff, the stuff you are good at only 2-4 days per two weeks.
Se entiendo que en un gimnasio de crossfit hay personas que no van durante toda la semana o todos los días, aun mas especifico con una cadencia de entrenamiento aleatoria podría solo asistir a entrenamiento de fuerza durante mucho tiempo o por el contrario solo asistir a entrenamientos de acondicionamiento metabólico, de esto especulo que el programa fue variado a una primera parte de fuerza o desarrollo de una habilidad y luego una parte metabólica. Por otra parte entiendo el concepto por que hace anos atrás también tuve la idea de que seria mucho mas eficiente para mis alumnos (Soy coach de crossfit o crosstraining como quieran llamarlo, no tengo la certificación por si es relevante) tener semanas completas de "Metcons" y semanas completas de entrenamientos asociados a fuerza o halterofilia, luego de mucho tiempo note que no había mejora considerable y esto se da por la frecuencia de entrenamiento de las personas que van, no son son atletas, simplemento algnos van a mejorar su calidad de vida o hacer ejercicio de forma mas "recreativa". Dentro de lo que veo de las estudios mostrados es que 1 a 3 personas con sus datos hacen que el porcentaje de mejora sea mayor en el grupo hibrido, pero eso se puede deber a otros factores, me refiero no por el estilo de entrenamiento. Para mi en estos casos la mejor respuesta es probar y analizar sus propios resultados, podría llegar a ser que a algunas personas les sirva y a otras no.
Grandes puntos, estoy de acuerdo.
Para la mayoría de las personas (y por eso los afiliados lo hacen), entrenar fuerza y luego resistencia está bien.
Dicho esto, con respecto al punto que mencionaste de que algunas personas se pierden entrenamientos específicos porque solo vienen 2-3 veces por semana al gimnasio, nuestro enfoque híbrido tendría más sentido, ya que siempre harían O un metcon O fuerza, dependiendo de la semana.
Las personas que más se beneficiaron del enfoque híbrido en nuestros datos no eran valores atípicos, por lo que fueron incluidas en el análisis estadístico. Pero estoy de acuerdo en que un aumento del 3-4% en la eficiencia del entrenamiento no importa para la mayoría de los atletas principiantes.
I miss the "ciao" at the end 💪🏼🦁💙🚀...
Ciao Alberto :)
Also seems obvious that the hybrid group would performed better on the test that were “hybrid” only . There improvements were only significant in the single modality test . Would have liked to see more or at least equal test of single and mixed modalities .
The hybrid group did exactly the same training as the traditional group. Just structured differently. I don't see your point.
@@wod-science maybe i misunderstood. Same training as in same workouts only or same workouts just done on different days seperate from each other?
The study, is it going to be published or peer reviewed?
Hopefully yes, finishing up the manuscript.
8:51 how can average work per week be higher on average of two groups if they themselves have lower averages?
Because some outliers were taken out. The individual data per gender is raw (with outliers, 1 or two in total). We will adjust this, thanks.
Surely this needs to be peer reviewed or at least published? Can you provide access to the study or data?
Once it is fully out, yes, I will share on our IG page.
Testing difference in % changes is the worst statistical approach. I suggest you run an ANCOVA on the post test with the pre test as covariate. It's the most powerful approach and you may find statistically significant differences
Noted.
Thought about that. Will do.
@@wod-science here is the ref. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121605/
Is there not also an issue that this wasn’t reviewed by an IRB (per @wod-science IG posts) and participants paid to participate? Among statistical issues.
This is not new… This is basic PT thats been used in the military and most other sports for over 60 years and exactly what the argument was against CrossFit when it first appeared. Second issue brought against CrossFit was lack of block periodisation. So essentially you just highlighted the two arguments every sports coach had against Crossfit was true. So your recommendations are to not conduct CrossFit how it was designed to be done and just do what everyone has already been doing - traditional periodisation PT.
and? it's always nice to have some evidence, there's a lot of experts in the fitness world that say this and that without any
@@sirbaam3287 there is already substantial evidence… its been used and stated countless times. It’s written into core programming of olympics, military and other sports for 60 years. Crossfit as usual, reiterating what was already known as fact like they invented it. The issue being this was stated as the problem with crossfit for the past 10 years and crossfitters argued against it, including Glassman - now its gone full circle.
@@wilko4085 this is about crossfit performance, i doubt there was evidence to that 60 years ago. And i still believe its a good thing to show such evidence eventough it was already proven before, especially if as you say old evidence wasnt looked at as "legit".
The substantial evidence is flawed and incomplete because all of your "testing" is in a segmented manner. Training single modalities will produce superior results when testing single modalities... but then you become a one dimensional athlete. So you are missing the entire point of CrossFit.
Consider that these kind of trials are not easy to implement, let alone find the 'perfect' tests. How would you have designed the pre and post test then? And would they be a better representation of overall CF fitness, like CF Open rank etc.?
I keep saying, people who are “hybrid” athletes that run in the morning and lift in the evening, are taking the easy way out. Mix the 2 together in the same session and it’s a completely different level of fitness, which alot of people could not cope with..Synergy, as the two are working together to achieve the optimal possible outcome!
Hm, I see you point. But don't confuse how 'hard sth feels' (I agree lifting + metcon feel MUCH harder), with effective programming and actually making more performance gains.
If hybrid is the easy way out, AND I make more gains, I'll take that any day :).
@@wod-science i understand what your saying about the progress between zone 2 and zone 5 training, But i feel like alot of hybrid athletes couldnt do a hard metcon workout effectively. Which to me dosnt seem like progress at all.. especially if your training to be able to deal with situations that involve you to be fit in every aspect all at once.
@@M.C.R.SYNTRN I am not sure you are understanding the results. The Hybrid group outperformed the Traditional group in Fran, definitely a lung burner, the 20-rep bodyweight back squat, a total lactic acid fest, and finally the 2K row. I am not sure if you have ever done a full out 2K row time trial, but there are few singe modality workouts that will push you into the pain cave mentally and physically more than this one. I am not sure what you mean by a "hard Metcon" but I will take the athlete that can out Fran, 20 rep back squat, with the better max lifts and the fastest 2K row time, all-day!!!
@@M.C.R.SYNTRN The hybrid group did "metcons only" every other week.
@@jasonzurba8000 well regardless of “progress” with stats and numbers, most “hybrid atheltes” cant hack a hard weighted cardio session. Take Nick Bare for example, perfect picture of “hybrid” athlete. Good run times, good weight lifting numbers. Put him in a 20 session of burpee pull-ups, rowing, squat thrusters and running and he would cave.. thats what im saying. I would rather be fit for that.
What you call 'traditional CrossFit Training' IS NOT traditional, it is a more modern application. In it's methodology CrossFit DOESN'T do Strenght and Metcons on a same session. It would be a good research to read both de Level 1 Training guide and the CF Journal Articles. Modern or more popula CrossFit Training IS NOT traditional.
I did my LVL1 and read all the writings from Greg. I take your point, 'traditional' was poorly chosen. I will replace by concurrent going forward. That does not take away the fact that 85+% of affiliated program like group A, so our approach is defo relevant in the real world, regardless of the wording.
You guys made it seem like this wasn’t a study and was for in-house information and never went through an IRB, but plan on trying to publishing? Don’t you think “pay to participate” along with no IRB approval is an ethical issue?
We are in contact with local IRB, might need to add participants in the future in order be able to publish. 👍
Very clever - unpublished,un peer reviewed only available through paywall of $40 USD / month 👏
Only available trough paywall? We freaking put these data open for everyone. So everyone can see and criticize. We provide evidence to the programming we deliver - why is this a problem according to you?
A true interference effect is overrated IMO. The real problem of concurrent training is that often the training load is excessive.
Agreed 100%. You can't train everything at 100%, there need to be compromised volume - wise.
The test is more orientated towards pure strenght and pure endurance separated.
What if the test was a crossfit competition? People who train with the CF methodology would have won...
The test week was basically a crossfit competition. High load for the people with a mix of strength, mixed and cardio. I do not see your point. You think that group A would have done better in crossfit Open workouts? They did worse in Fran.
@@wod-science exactly. If the test was a real CF competition such as for exemple CF open workout, or quartier o semifinals workouts or any CF competition at National level the results may change.
The test of the research is far from a CF competition: 3 strenght workouts, 1 pure cardio, 1 CF benchmark (not Hero workout).
more CF workouts are needed, only Fran Is not enough...sometimes you can be bad in Fran and good in another workout with other movements...
My humble advice.
@@simoneingrosso8096 We did this kind of set-up because previous research has indicated that strength and squat 1RM are the best predictors of Open performance. Putting together a new video (next week) to cover this is in more depth. Because you touch an important point.
@@wod-science CF competition are normally on 2-3 days, 6-8 workouts. Most workouts are mixed (Gym, Weight, Cardio mixed). Only 1 or 2 are based on pure strenght and pure Cardio.
In workout you move weights from 43-80-100 kg during 6-8-10 minutes ...It depends...while performing other elements (Gym or cardio elements).
So It Is very important tò be strong in CF.
For exemple, for elite athletes (regional and games) the strenght needed Is about 150-170 kg c&j 110-130 kg snatch. (Back sq, Front, Deadlift are % of the previous numbers).
If AN athlete has less strenght he is in trouble...he should work his strenght.
If AN athlete has more he Is in trouble too...because It means he Is focusing too much on strenght... ...BUT in crossfit you have tò be average at all, and excel in anything.
If you are too strong...you stop focusing on strenght and you use this opportunity for work on other areas of weakness.
So for me Hybrid training can be useful to develop strenght and cardio.
If you are a crossfit athlete, you may use Hybrid Methodology during the offseason (out of competition) tò work on this areas if needed ...
If you are already strong and good in cardio...but weak in Gymnastics it is Better you work on your gymnastics in offseason).
In conclusion, strenght Is AN important predictor of performance in CF but also other factors are. And tò be good in CF you just have tò follow the crossfit Methodology.
( For amateur CF Athlets the same considerations applies with values less than 150 c&j and 120 snatch...and yes if you perform Fran but your max 1RM thruster Is 60 kg you Will have problem and you should work to reach a decente amount of strenght)
@@wod-science Crossfit competition are normally on 2-3 days, 6-8 workouts. Most workouts are multimodality (Gym, Weight, Cardio mixed). Only 1 or 2 are monomodality based on pure strenght and pure Cardio.
In workout you basically move weights from 43-80-100 kg during 6-8-10 minutes ...It depends...while performing other elements (Gym or cardio elements).
So yes It Is very important tò be strong in CF, among others.
For exemple, for elite athletes (regional and games) the strenght needed Is about 150-170 kg c&j 110-130 kg snatch. (Back sq, Front, Deadlift are % of the previous numbers).
If an athlete has less strenght than that values he is in trouble...he should work on his strenght.
If an athlete has more he may be probably and in trouble too...because it could mean that he is focusing too much on strenght......BUT in crossfit you have tò be average at all.
If you are too strong...you stop focusing on strenght and you work on other areas of weakness or improvement.
So for me Hybrid training can be useful to develop strenght and cardio.
If you are a crossfit athlete, you may use this Hybrid Methodology in offseason (far from competition period) to work on this areas if needed ...
If you are already strong and good in cardio...but weak in Gymnastics it is Better you work on your gymnastics in offseason).
In conclusion, strenght Is AN important predictor of performance in CF but also other factors (such as 400 m sprint, 5k run, max pull ups, hspu, ring mu....and several CF benchmark wod). And tò be good in CF you just have tò follow the crossfit Methodology that is well explained in crossfit level courses.
( And yes For amateur athletes strenght is important and a good predictor too among others predictors...for exemple if you perform Fran and your max 1RM thruster Is 60 kg you Will have huuge problems. But when you reach a decente amount of strenght should be ok)
“wow we trained these people with single modalities and then tested them with single modalities and they got better”
You guys really do hate everything that isn’t Sentinel or Sevan, huh?
Why do you think we trained them with single modalities? 50% of all training volume in group B were metcons consisting of all CF movements. Don't get this point, sorry.
@@wod-science the “test” was largely single modality, excluding “Fran” (which is not a hero workout) and even that for experienced CrossFitters isnt heavy enough for it to be anything except metabolic. So of course the group that training single modality improved on that specific test more. If the test was quarterfinal workouts with mixed modalities, training in a segmented manor would not benefit you
@@Generic4LetterProgramCompany if my comment is hating then his video is hating on the methodology (neither of them are)
@@brysondelmonte1431 OK, but the training was not single modality at all and if fact was not different between group A and B (except for the periodization). Group B did as many pure metcons (multiple modalities) as Group A, just all together within the week.