Generalised Periodisation is Dead (For Crossfitters)

As CrossFit has evolved from an exercise program chasing a constant state of General Physical Preparedness, to a sport requiring a time specific peak, the programming supporting these diverging goals has also evolved.

For an athlete pursuing CrossFit as their sport, ‘CrossFitness’ is largely dependant on two things; the magnitude of fitness and the balance of its components. Balance without magnitude delivers a midtier CrossFitter at best, while magnitude without balance does not even deliver a CrossFitter - just a masquerading specialist, events away from exposure. And yet, flocks of CrossFit sportspeople around the world follow the masses into whatever program bias is in vogue. There is simply too much individual athlete variance for blanket programming to work.

There is no doubting that a periodised program for a known peak is a necessity for a competition CrossFitter. The overall concept is that of ‘accumulation’. You begin by biasing towards one element of fitness (eg: strength), then retain that as you build another on top of it, then retain it as you build another on top of that. The key is in keeping the stimulus high enough in the ‘already biased towards components of fitness’ to retain the improvement you gained in them while you bias towards something else. Whenever you bias away from a focus (ie: less heavy powerlifts), the program that replaces them must be sufficient to maintain the gains made by the biasing. Preservation of previously established physical abilities even after they are no longer biased towards.

It is generally accepted that certain elements of fitness take longer to develop than others. Absolute strength takes longer than bodyweight ability, which takes longer than cardiorespiratory endurance. With this in mind, most broadly targeted programs bias heavy barbell work early in the season, and build towards cardiorespiratory endurance and skills later in the season. This traditional model is demonstrated in figure 1, which shows the previously accepted order of bias and the end of cycle aims for three concurrent cycles of training.

But this neat model of athletic development takes into account only the already balanced athlete. The model is theoretical only. Practically speaking, the model fails to maximise athletic performance when the subject is not already balanced. A 200kg+ back squatter whose worst CrossFit Open placing falls in the muscle-up workout every year can direct their focus more intelligently than at the nearest Eastern Bloc sounding squat cycle.

Barely a week goes by when someone doesn’t post the question on social media, “Is it possible to be too strong?”. I’ve considered this concept, and for CrossFit at least, I believe it is. Not because you can become ‘too strong’ per se, but because the effort it took to become this strong came at the detriment of another element, in a sport that favours the generalist. Can you be too strong? Can you be too cardiovascularly conditioned? Can you have too much bodyweight stamina? Yes.

When strength becomes a strength, training efforts are better directed at your more limiting factors. It’s human nature to do more of what we’re good at. We’ve always done it because we enjoy what we excel at, and we do more of what we enjoy. For the pursuit of athletic balance however, we must devote our time and resources to those things that limit us - quite often, those things we dislike.

My problem with the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to athlete periodisation is that it assumes an athlete is already balanced. A CrossFit Regionals level athlete with relative ratings of 8/10 in barbell strength and 2/10 in relative (bodyweight) strength ability should not be biasing towards heavy power and Olympic lifts early in the training cycle. Even though the absolute strength may take longer to develop, the starting point for that athlete demands a bias towards gymnastics ability - regardless of the point in the season. CrossFitters need to stop following the crowd. Athletes need to aggressively and individually attack their own deficiencies, not those of the group.

The previously accepted hierarchy of athletic development, should be restructured to reflect this concept. We should stray from the well worn path of ‘barbells to gymnastics to work capacity’ as the season progresses. We should instead forge ahead with a periodised approach to weakness, biasing towards major weaknesses early in the cycle, then tweaking this bias by adding moderate weaknesses and eventually strengths as the season progresses (fig. 2). As the time to peak reduces, so should the element of bias.

And here lies the basis of programming. We identify deficiencies. We bring these deficiencies up to par with the individual’s strengths. This creates a balanced athlete. Once we have a balanced athlete, we remove any long term bias (though may introduce shortened periods of temporary bias) and improve the athlete as a whole.

The time of CrossFIt athletes following generalised programming and expecting competition success is over. The time of CrossFit athletes following ‘cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all’ periodised programming and expecting competition success is over. Yes, competitive CrossFitters must periodise, but this periodisation must be for the individual.