CrossFit vs. Conventional Strength & conditioning; Why Coach One and Not The Other!?

If you've followed my Instagram (@_etxtraining) long enough you'll get a good sense of how I personally like to train' mixed modal 'functional' movements, conditioning, gymnastics, plyos, olympic lifts etc. or CrossFit as some would prefer to blanket state it. For those unfamiliar with CrossFit, it is defined as "Constantly varied, functional movement, performed at high intensity - push, pull, hinge, squat, strength & your aerobic system." (The Processprogramming,2020). Very similar to conventional Strength and conditioning, which would be best defined as a periodized programmation of dynamic and static movements designed to further performance. The goal is where the two differ. Now let's just take a quick step back before I pop some heads from saying CrossFit is strictly a competitive sport...this is not the case. It is primarily used as a means for creating a sustainable healthy lifestyle by the majority of its practitioners. Only a select few in the broad community actually compete in it as a sport. However, in my case, I compete in CrossFit, so the goal is shifted from one of health centred to competitive centred. Back to where they differ...in conventional S&C training we look to manipulate intensity and volume in a somewhat cyclical fashion (depending on sport and competition period(s)) called macrocycles, which are further divided into meso-cycles and micro-cycles. In these cycles coaches manipulate exercise selection, intensity, and volume to optimize the cycles intention (Anatomical Adaptation, Anaerobic, Hypertrophy, strength, power...Aerobic, Anaerobic fast, Anaerobic slow...etc.) and build towards a peak. A peak is dependent on the sports competition season or competitions. Most sports are consistent year to year so periodizing can be a tad simpler, taking a direct approach to specific aspects of off-field/court/ice training, Where CrossFit differs is that, even though there is a pretty well defined season the demands of competition require athletes to train virtually all modalities on a consistent basis. This is not to say that coaches don't periodize specific blocks (i.e Strength, Aerobic capacity etc.) but there will always be elements of each domain in one's training throughout the year. What this leads to is generalization to the extreme where athletes become proficient in every domain, but rarely specialized in all. Most have strengths (gymnastics, strength, speed, endurance) but are only successful based on their ability to be above average in most if not all domains. This is the primary difference between the two methods. One is a brick by brick approach while the other is brick, walls, and windows at same time.

With this in mind why wouldn't you opt for the latter, it would seem like you would reach the outcome sooner??? This is the bulk of the discussion...

As a CrossFit athlete, or at least someone who competes in the realm of functional fitness, I know very well the benefits of training multiple modalities on the regular and becoming a generalist. It has made me fitter, stronger, and has improved my aerobic capacity. But I still choose to train the majority of my athletes with conventional strength and conditioning methods...why?

Conventional S&C methods, as stated above, have variables that can be accurately manipulated to optimize performance. Each sport has innate characteristics that determine the outcome of success. In contact sports like Rugby, American football, and Hockey, being robust, agile, while simultaneously having the ability to produce high force outputs are integral in the outcome. If an athlete isn't developing specific elements of their game off the field/rink they run the risk of either being pushed out of competition or run the risk of injury. These sport specific elements make conventional S&C training an effective approach. Ultimately S&C programming is designed to in equal parts mitigate injury while maximizing athletic performance. In an approach like CrossFit the blurred lines between conventional block training can make providing an athlete specific sport related adaptations difficult.

One thing to consider here as well is that there are many similarities among the two. Even though I prefer to utilize a structured S&C approach with my athletes does not mean I do not incorporate elements of CrossFit into their trainings. I mean where do you think most of those CF methods came from anyways...the creator of CF Greg Glassman wasn't the first person to think of circuits, completing sets of exercises as quickly as possible, and train in intervals. So once again, these two methods are very close in nature. The main point I wish to bring forward is the idea of periodization. Where programming in a structured pattern to optimize outcome at specific times of the year > generalist, high output, training year round.

Ben Bergeron, a well known CF coach from New England known for his work with 2 time CF Games champ Katrin Davidsdottir, spoke recently in an interview about the general structure of his athletes. Outlining that in a given week they Practice 45%, Train 45%, and Compete 10%. This equates to one workout a week where they are going balls to the walls, competition level effort in a workout. Practice is very low intensity/weight movement to purely work on the technique. Training is the bulk of intensity and volume operating between 50-80% intensity. Compete, is as I said, all out. This is similar to the football player who performs 45% aerobic work, 45% anaerobic work, and 10% game level conditioning/lifting. With conventional S&C when programming into the 90-100%, the output is maximal but it is still to create an anatomical adaptation. The difference with CF is that the goal is to compete at the highest possible output for the shortest/longest amount of time, often surpassing the gauge of adaptation, and landing solely in the realm of performance, not performance improvement, but best performance you can muster. The athlete following an S&C program that needs to test their 1RM back squat doesn't do so every week, they do it at the end of a block, which could be anywhere between 1-12 weeks. With this is mind, we must weigh out the impact of competing on a weekly basis, sacrificing potential adaptations.

Another consideration is resource and time management. CrossFit, and the adaptations one needs in order to improve their own performance is very individualistic. As are the needs of an athlete, but in a team environment a program can cover a larger group of athletes competing in Rugby better than a large group of CrossFitters. With conventional S&C methods I can reach the same collective goal with one program making slight modifications where necessary for select individuals. If this were to be applied to a large group of individual competing CrossFitters the outcome would be an astounding reduction in overall success / improvement. Due to the high degree of specificity required to build general skill in all domains it makes CrossFit centred programming difficult to apply to a sporting team. Sport teams operate on a time budget, they need to be prepared for certain dates, coaches have agendas, and S&C is secondary to on field/court/ice practice/games etc. CrossFit athletes are typically training for years ahead of a singular large event, the time budget is far broader and the athlete is the main focus of trainings.

For the most competitive athletes (top 1%) the approach they take has changed drastically in the past 5 years where athletes & coaches are now forming camps (regional training centres) and treating the CrossFit season similar to a sporting year where they program based on select qualifying competitions (Open, Quarterfinals, Semi-Finals (LCQ), and Finals). So as the sport grows and the playing field expands, the athletes have begun adopting a more conventional S&C method to training. However, I believe that regardless of change in the CF sporting world there will alway have to be elements of all CF domains in one training and will always need to involve some form of competitive level training on a weekly basis.

Ultimately, knowing the benefits of CrossFit and the utility of conventional S&C training it can be a toss up between personal preference and professional preference. Thankfully the two share many similar elements effectively giving me the opportunity to apply the best aspects of the two.

"Progression is built through consistency and tested by passion"

JB