CrossFit athletes: an easier route to success

In these endurance sports, athletes typically adopt a polarized approach to training (characterized by approximately 80%–95% of work done in zone 1 (below the first lactate threshold) and approximately 5%–20% in zone 3 (above the second lactate threshold) while avoiding the moderate threshold-based intensity – zone 2 (between the first and second lactate thresholds)⁽¹⁰⁾. Another popular approach is the pyramidal structure, where slightly more moderate-intensity training is included than high-intensity training, resulting in approximately 60%–90% zone 1, 5%–30% zone 2, and 2%–10% zone 3 training⁽¹¹⁾.

Polarized training for CrossFit

Given the above, could a more endurance-based approach such as polarized training intensity distribution be equally as effective for CrossFit athletes while imposing less loading and fatigue resulting in better recovery? A new study by a team of German scientists has tested this exact theory⁽¹²⁾. Published in the prestigious journal ‘Frontiers in Physiology’, this study examined the effects of traditional HIFT vs. polarized HIFT on a number of key performance parameters in CrossFit athletes.

Thirty experienced, injury-free CrossFit athletes (15 females, and 15 males, average age 26 years), and who were training for at least six hours per week split over at least three sessions per week (remember, HIFT is very demanding!) were recruited. Following baseline testing the athletes were split into two groups, both of which completed a 6-week training intervention. These groups were:

·        Polarized HIFT – where the intensity distribution was 78% zone 1 training and 22% training in zones 2/3.

·        Traditional LIFT - where the intensity distribution was 26% zone 1 training and 74% training in zones 2/3 (much more representative of most CrossFit athletes’ training distribution).

During the training sessions, the athletes’ heart rates in both groups were monitored by a coach to ensure they remained within the target range. Specifically, the movement tempo, workload, or power was adjusted if the heart rate was too low or too high. The actual training volumes in terms of time duration were matched between the two groups. Before and after the training intervention, the athletes were tested for their performance in the following CrossFit-related tasks:

·        Maximal strength in the squat, deadlift, overhead press and, high pull

·        Maximal aerobic capacity (VO2peak)

·        Lactate threshold

·        Peak power output (PPO)

·        A benchmark HIFT workout consisting of 1000m rowing, 50 thrusters, and 30 pull-ups, with faster times scoring higher.

What they found

Both groups improved their performances in the deadlift, overhead press, high pull and the benchmark workout test, with the degree of improvement being the same in both groups. However, the really interesting finding was that the athletes in the polarized group achieved these gains while accumulating a far lower training load compared to the traditional LIFT group. Moreover, this was reflected in the comparison of wellbeing status between the polarized and traditional groups. The incidence of poor wellbeing, physical overexertion, or injury was significantly lower in the polarized group than in the traditional group (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Training loads, intensity distributions and wellness

Implications for athletes

This new research shows that a polarized approach to CrossFit training can be particularly beneficial for athletes seeking to maintain high performance levels over extended periods, as it allows for adequate recovery between high-intensity sessions, but does NOT seem to impair training-related performance gains. Even better, athletes who adopt this approach are likely to feel more refreshed, better recovered and to be less injury prone. And while this study was set up to investigate Cross-Fit performance, there’s no reason the findings wouldn’t pertain to athletes who perform other high-intensity conditioning programs such as circuit training.

For those CrossFit athletes who have performed well with traditional HIFT, one way of putting this different approach into action might be to vary HIFT and polarized training; HIFT can be the mainstay of training, but having one week in every three or four where polarized training is adopted, allowing the high-intensity gains to be consolidated while ensuring better recovery and adaptation. This is conjecture of course; we need more research to investigate what the optimum balance might be. But what we can say for now is that taking an easier, polarized approach looks like a great option for athletes who want performance gains in CrossFit without pushing themselves to the limit all the time!

References

1.       What is fitness? CrossFit J 2002. 3, 1–11

2.       Scand. J. Med. & Sci. Sports 2017. 27 (11), 1258–1262

3.       Orthop. J. Sports Med 2016. 4 (8), 2325967116663706

4.       Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022. 19 (8), 4526

5.       J. Sports Sci 2016. 34 (3), 209–223

6.       Front. Physiology 2019. 10, 1307

7.       J. Appl. Physiology (Bethesda, Md. 1985) 2013. 114 (3), 411–420

8.       Eur. J. Sport Sci 2006. 6, 1–14

9.       Sports 2023. 11 (2), 24

10.     Front. Sports Act. Living 2023. 5, 1258585

11.     Front. Physiology 2020. 2 (11), 534688

12.     Front Physiol. 2024 Nov 15:15:1446837. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2024.1446837. eCollection 2024