Crossfit
The Crossfit Games is a unique challenge that purports to test the genuine all round fitness of the competing athletes (Crossfit, 2009). The games are based on controversial Crossfit protocols, which aim to keep individuals in a perpetual state of readiness (Cooperman, 2005). It is claimed that this approach prepares athletes for any challenge (Glassman, 2002). It is therefore suggested that the Crossfit Games are an opportunity for individuals to demonstrate peak fitness, not specific preparation for a particular event.
The Crossfit website, posts a Workout of the Day (WOD) which can differ considerably daily. These workouts are based around high intensity, strength and aerobic conditioning. The workouts are of no cost and are available to anyone as a training method. The exercises used range from Olympic lifting to running.
One of the key components of any training program is the use of periodization (Fleck, 1999). According to Fleck (1999) a periodized training program is one, which alternates training to peak at the correct time, bringing about optimal short and long terms gains. It is also stated that the concept of progressive overload should also be used whereby volume, intensity, frequency or time is varied and increased systematically in order to achieve a performance gain. However, an excess of training stimuli, for example too much of an increase in training intensity can result in overtraining and consequently may decrease performance or result in injury or illness.
Crossfits use of ever-changing WOD’s makes it difficult to apply progressive overload. It is not really possible to observe any performance gains, as the variety in training doesn’t enable the individual to repeat an exercise protocol and observe a better performance. This method can actually expose the participant to overtraining. Bouchard et al., (2001) proposed that training responses to a variety of exercise differed between individuals, consequently the wide variety of WOD’s used in Crossfit may mean the one particular workout may require more recovery from one individual as opposed to another. An example of this is that one WOD required the individual to perform 30 muscle-ups as part of the workout. Following this (2 days later) the WOD involved 5 sets of 5 maximal push jerks. Both of these workouts place huge strain on the shoulders and when placed so closely together, injury to the shoulder joint is may be increased.
Controversially, previous research by Garhammer et al., (2002) has shown the use of periodization to not actually be effective. Factors such as motivation as well as neural and hormonal changes were seen to result in a performance decrease. It is therefore important to not undermine the variability of training. It may be possible to keep an athlete in an optimal state by using variation in training and providing new training demands (Siff, 2004). Given that Crossfit participation rates are growing at a rate of 350% a year, variety may be the reason for such huge adherence from individuals (Crossfit, 2009).
Crossfit claims to be highly personalize-able, however the resources for individuals that are unable to perform certain exercises are minimal. This is a big disadvantage for new participants. The reality is, no single WOD has the ability to meet every individuals needs effectively or safely. This is particularly the case for workouts consisting of Olympic lift techniques or complex movements such as muscle-ups. To some extent, the learning of new exercises is actually positive, however given that the protocols used when carrying out these exercise techniques result in participants doing them to fatigue, the participant may actually be exposed to risking injury. A study by confirmed that lifting technique is poorer when training to fatigue and so the amount of customization required for some individual WOD’s may actually result in an entirely different workout (Robson-Ansley et al., 2009). If a participant did actually get injured, given that the WOD’s consist of such full body exercises, the participant would have to drop out of the program. It may also be beneficial that such a variety of exercises are used, not exposing individuals to he risk of overuse injuries. In terms of raw numbers, basketball and football have far more injuries than gymnastics, Olympic lifting and Track and Field, which can be seen to be the main components of Crossfit. It is the fact these events are carried out to fatigue and with different variables, for example the quickest time, that there is an added risk of injury. Therefore one of the biggest risks to “crossfitters” is the individual’s perceived execution of form with various lifts.
TRX Training
TRX training stands for Total Body Resistance training, it is also referred to as suspension training. The TRX suspension trainer leverages gravity and the participant’s body weight to enable various exercises to be used. It is designed to utilize exercises developing strength, balance, flexibility and core stability simultaneously and aid injury prevention and rehabilitation. The equipment itself requires an anchoring point where the straps are attached; hands or feet can then be placed in the suspension trainer, while the opposite end of the body is in contact with the ground.
“All Core-All the Time” is the principle concept of the TRX. This is based on the fact that the majority of exercise used on the TRX engage and increase core muscle activity. Core muscles provide stability, balance and flexibility; these aspects are used in everyday life, for example, picking something up from the floor (Moreside et al., 2007). Currently there are no peer reviewed studies to validate core activation specific to suspension training, however studies have been conducted using adjunctive modalities such as the Swiss ball and unstable conditions to study core muscle recruitment, therefore providing some evidence supporting this method (Marshall et al., 2005).
One main benefit of this equipment is the ability to alter workout intensity, making it extremely simple or highly complex and dynamic. Unlike Crossfit, it is possible for an individual with no previous experience to try TRX and very easily have an adapted workout and the method in which individuals then progress are a lot clearer. Exercises can be designed to include changes in resistance, stability or both. In terms of rehabilitation or pre-habilitation using therapeutic exercises, these small increases are particularly important (Gill et al., 2004). However, a potential limitation to this training method is that many individuals may actually lack familiarity with the body movements involved. Weaker individuals may not have the core stability or joint integrity to use the system safely or effectively. Consequently it is possible for an individual to be placed in a biomechanically dangerous situation, where too much resistance has actually been created. There are risks with any form of training; positively research appears to suggest body weight related exercise is actually safer than other exercise methods (Scheunke, 2002).
The fact that exercises carried out on this equipment incorporate so many muscle groups for each movement has positives and negatives. Using so many muscles at once, may actually take the emphasis away from the target muscle group, for example when training the pectoral muscle, there is a lot of core activation and other muscle use required to stabilize the movement. It may actually be the stabilizing muscles that fatigue before the target muscle group, however it could be argued that this is a positive attribute to TRX overall injury prevention. With stabilizing muscle groups being worked, joints may then be stronger. As a result the individual is actually developing a more functional fitness capability (Simons et al., 2006). The varied angles and positions, in which exercise can be carried out in, mean that TRX training has the ability to enable multi-plane exercises. Sports such as MMA fighting place fighters in a variety of compromising positions requiring numerous muscles to contribute to movement strategies. Even everyday life requires individuals to carry out movements in various planes and axis. The added bonus with this training is the fact that there is less impact on bones when carrying out movements, while still have the benefits on weight bearing.
Another limitation is the extent in which advanced individuals can workout; eventually there may not be enough resistance to seek gains. The option of using weighted jackets has been considered, however there is only so much extra weight you can wrap around your torso effectively. Consequently once a peak level has been obtained using TRX, individuals may plateau. For those seeking muscle size and strength gains beyond those achieved using bodyweight, TRX is limited.
Insanity Training
The insanity workout system requires no equipment and merely consists of DVD demonstrated training sessions. This training method utilizes high intensity interval training, where long periods of maximum intensity exercise are followed by short periods of rest. The training alternates between aerobic and anaerobic intervals and claims to have the potential to burn 1000 calories in 1 hour, as a result, the goals of this program are very physique driven. Intervals consist of plyometrics, strength, power, resistance and abdominal/core exercises.
Prior to partaking in the program an initial fitness test is to be completed, enabling participants to make a before and after fitness comparison. Each interval is maximal therefore individuals can work as hard as capabilities allow within that time frame. Given that participants will range in fitness ability, this is definitely a positive aspect of the training methodology. However, a major concern with the overall program method is the fact that participants are expected to train for 60 days, with only 1 rest day a week. For even a well trained individual this can be a high workload, therefore a slightly weaker individual may find it difficult to adhere to the training (Fry et al., 1992). Certain individuals may require longer recovery from sessions and would benefit from initially starting with fewer sessions per week. In order to not only avoid the side effects from overtraining but also be realistic in terms of maintaining participation, a slightly easier introductory phase could be introduced to the program. However, it may be due to the huge workload that such impressive results are actually observed and outweigh the risks of overtraining as it is over a relatively short period. Effectively by shocking the body so intensely the body adapts quicker and carries out physical change such as fat loss more dramatically (Fitts et al., 1996). The incorporation of plyometric and dynamic exercises may also be viewed as an extension of the “shock” method of strengthening muscle for athletic performance (Lundin, 1985).
The program does use some form of progressive overload, with sessions in the first 30 days lasting 45 minutes, being increased to 1 hour for the last 30 days. It is claimed that this is the hardest, most intense fitness system ever devised and that it is designed to achieve a lean muscular body. With the program being so cardiovascular based, the potential to actually build muscle isn’t huge. The fat loss achieved as a result of the program may therefore help show the muscle participants are already genetically predisposed to.
Short duration, high intensity interval training (HIIT) has been proposed as an effective way to improve aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity and be beneficial for numerous sports (Burgomaster, 2006). Previous research has proved HIIT to be effective, with the use of 1:2 and 1:3 ratios being successful (Billat et al., 2001). The ratios used in this training mean that there is less recovery than work; consequently the training takes individuals to fatigue. With the exercises consisting of high impact landing, for example when doing tuck jumps, it is particularly important that correct form is used to avoid injury. Beynnon et al., (2005) state that training using high volumes of floor impacts in a short period can result in injury. Fortunately, despite a consistent high workload the training itself varies, using exercises ranging from power knees to switch kicks therefore moving the emphasis to various body parts. A particularly good part of the training DVD is the fact that the trainer is consistently telling the participant to ensure form is maintained and to decrease the intensity if good form is being jeopardized.
A Comparative Conclusion
Each of the three training methods, have some form of expense. The access to any crossfit training regime comes at no cost, however individuals then require a wide range of equipment and facilities in order to carry out the exercises. Consequently the cost of joining a gym with such facilities can be expensive. The purchase of TRX Suspension straps is $189.95 and a 60-day Insanity workout DVD set costs $119.50. Given that each of these training method’s are different, it would not be logical to decide which to participate in, purely as a result of cost.
In terms of the safety of each, any activity has risks. Research shows that these risks are magnified when individuals are fatigued. Consequently, through its use of such complex movements and exhausting protocols crossfit appears to place its participants in the most risk filled environment. Lack of knowledge with regards to lifting technique, or poor form as a result of fatigue can easily result in injury. The use of plyometric training methods when fatigued and the high ground impact volumes used in Insanity training mean this method appears second to crossfit. The safest of the three is TRX training, with minimal ground contacts and the ability to easily change the difficulty of an exercise.
With each of these methods having success stories, testimonials and scientific evidence proving the method’s effectiveness, there is no denying the fact that the types of training have worked previously and have further benefits. With regards to maintaining participation in each training method, it is possible to see that TRX training is limited. Similarly, Insanity training does have the potential to enable participants to progress, but also shows the potential for individual’s performance to plateau and potentially decrease. The sheer variety of Crossfit protocols may actually be advantageous, despite criticism from existing research on the use of periodization. Further research suggests this variation in training may enable an athlete to maintain an optimal state and remain motivated.
An important observation from analysing these training methods is the potential for both Insanity training and TRX training to contribute to Crossfit and vice versa. The concept of TRX training and the use high intensity plyometric training from Insanity are comparable to aspects used in Crossfit, such as the rings and high intensity sprints. Consequently these two methods could contribute towards Crossfit preparation. As a result, Crossfit does appear better rounded, however this is not to say Crossfit is the best approach to training. Factors such as training ability and specific training goals/aims require consideration and through using all three of these methods, individuals can gain elements of functional fitness.
It appears to be the case that to get the most out of these methods, individuals already have to be fairly advanced in the gym and consequently those who aren’t would be better carrying out programs more specifically tailored to set goals and current ability levels before progressing on to one of these. It is difficult to state which method is most effective, when research can be conflicting and each of the methods have differing aims.
