CrossFit Pros and Cons: Training, Risk and Motivation

CrossFit pros and cons involve training variety, technique, injury evidence and motivation. Study context matters. A retracted paper cannot support a benefit claim. A survey does not establish a universal injury-risk ranking.

What draws attention to CrossFit?

CrossFit has become an established part of athletic training. CrossFit blends different training approaches and emphasizes varied functional movements. The CrossFit community is very close-knit.

Some detractors may even describe the training community as having somewhat of a cult following and behavior. This has led other fitness communities, such as the bodybuilding or powerlifting communities, to adopt a negative attitude towards the Cross-Fitters. This may be because the training style incorporates many styles of training, combining new exercises and techniques, not always being performed in the safest manner.

Regardless, CrossFit training is finding its way into the gyms and fitness facilities across the world.

How does CrossFit combine training methods?

It is necessary to define CrossFit and how it differs from traditional anaerobic resistance training. CrossFit combines varied functional movements performed at relative intensity. It combines resistance training with aerobic exercise, trying to maximize the overall efficiency and effectiveness of every workout. According to a 2013 paper, by taking advantage of so many different training styles within a single workout program, Cross-Fitters hope to fulfill “the ultimate goal of [CrossFit, which] is to produce the maximum functionality that is possible for a specific individual”.

With a special focus on functionality, CrossFit often takes advantage of advanced compound movements like clean and presses, gymnastic style muscle ups, and weighted tire flips. Repetition ranges vary with the workout. AMRAP counts rounds or repetitions within a set time. It does not mean every set must end at muscular failure.

How does traditional resistance training compare?

By comparison, traditional anaerobic resistance training generally has more specific goals with each program. In a 2013 paper, traditional resistance training was seen as “the production of power, muscular strength and endurance, and hypertrophy are the main objectives for a successful resistance program. Other benefits such as improved peak running speed, increased performance of activities of daily living, higher quality of life, improved cognitive function, as well as increased effectiveness of motor recruitment patterns associated with resistance training are widely researched and supported with literature”.

To achieve these goals, traditional resistance training uses techniques that are well researched and widely accepted throughout the athletic training community. These methods are usually weightlifting movements, like the clean and jerk, bodybuilding-style movements like bicep curls, or powerlifting movements like bench press and squats.

Programming goals, exercise combinations and workout structure can differ. Both approaches require attention to technique, and exertion varies with the individual program rather than the training label alone.

What do the performance studies establish?

The approaches differ, but what do their comparisons actually measure? In a 2013 study, the performance of athletes was tracked in a variety of different areas. The seven areas studied were “body composition, flexibility, agility, maximum power, maximum strength, muscular endurance, [and] aerobic capacity”.

One half of the athletes were placed on a traditional anaerobic resistance program, while the other half was placed on a CrossFit program. After the completion of the program, the athletes were tested again. It was found that the Cross-Fitters showed significantly more progress than the traditional group in only one of the seven categories: maximum strength.

An Ohio State University paper published in 2013, and retracted in 2017, originally reported “that a 10-week crossfit-based HIPT program significantly improves the maximal aerobic capacity and body composition in individuals of all fitness levels and genders”. That quoted conclusion belongs to the retracted paper and should not be used as reliable support for a switch to CrossFit. Finding a difference in one of seven categories in the separate comparison does not establish equivalence in the others or show that most athletes should switch.

What does research tell us about CrossFit injury risk?

CrossFit injury risk deserves attention, but comparisons depend on study design and injury definitions. The 2014 Rochester survey reported CrossFit injury prevalence comparable with reports for other athletes. The injury profile resembled gymnastics, Olympic lifting and powerlifting. The researchers described CrossFit as “a blend of multiple synchronistic exercises, such as gymnastics, power lifting, Olympic lifting, and endurance activities. These movements are often performed at a high intensity with little recovery time between exercises”.

The workout-description quotation does not establish overtraining as the cause of the reported injuries.

The survey described injuries as primarily acute and fairly mild, and relied on participants’ reports.

How should injury-prevention evidence be interpreted?

For anyone using CrossFit to increase their athleticism for performance purposes, this may be an issue. For an athlete, training risk needs to be considered alongside the goals and demands of competition. If they are injured in training, they may not even be able to compete.

The cited survey does not establish that CrossFit’s benefits are generally outweighed by injury risk or that proper technique fails to matter. Strength-training injury-prevention evidence is relevant, but it is not a direct trial proving every traditional program safer than every CrossFit program.

A 2018 meta-analysis of six different studies concluded that “all six included studies were of high quality and demonstrated a dose–response relationship between strength training and sports injury prevention. In addition to being very safe, these interventions have—through more than one mechanism—proven prevention results seldom achieved by other exercise interventions or fields of medicine”.

With these results, it is generally accepted that traditional resistance training is very effective while helping to prevent sports-related injuries. That prevention review does not itself rank CrossFit against traditional resistance training.

What did participants report about motivation?

CrossFit’s appeal also extends beyond performance outcomes. Some participants value CrossFit’s community, variety and skill-building. The community is very supportive of each other, and it may be beneficial to understand why. A 2018 questionnaire study compared reported motives and exercise regulation among CrossFit and resistance-training participants. In terms of motivation, they found that “CrossFit members reported higher levels of intrinsic motives and intrinsic motivation to exercise. On the other hand, RT participants presented greater motive for appearance and higher levels of external regulation”.

These respondents reported different motivation patterns on average. This does not mean that every CrossFit participant is intrinsically motivated or that every traditional trainee exercises mainly for appearance.

This may be explained, as the 2018 study also found that CrossFitters often said “mastery over new skills is an important factor for [them]”. With the variety of exercises included in CrossFit programs, participants could have more opportunities to learn and master new skills. This process appears to be very rewarding to them.

What can coaches learn from both approaches?

Traditional resistance training can become repetitive over time, and “sticking to the basics” can get boring to some participants. Perhaps coaches and trainers could learn something from CrossFit training.

Many athletes could benefit from the variation and focus on building a well-rounded athlete found in the CrossFit model.

However, variation and intensity still need thoughtful programming and technique. Perhaps, if significant evidence that it produces superior results to other, more traditional training styles is forthcoming, perception can change.

References

Gerhart, H. D. (2013). A comparison of crossfit training to traditional anaerobic resistance training in terms of selected fitness domains representative of overall athletic performance (Order No. 1543873). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1433292104). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/comparison-crossfit-training-traditional/docview/1433292104/se-2?accountid=10003

Lauersen, J. B., Andersen, T. E., & Andersen, L. B. (2018). Strength training as superior, dose-dependent and safe prevention of acute and overuse sports injuries: a systematic review, qualitative analysis and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(24), 1557–1563. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-099078

Marin, D. , Polito, L. , Foschini, D. , Urtado, C. and Otton, R. (2018) Motives, Motivation and Exercise Behavioral Regulations in CrossFit and Resistance Training Participants. Psychology, 9, 2869-2884. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.914166

Retraction notice (no authors listed). (2017). CrossFit-based High Intensity Power Training Improves Maximal Aerobic Fitness and Body Composition: Retraction. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(7), e76. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000001990

Smith, M. M., Sommer, A. J., Starkoff, B. E., & Devor, S. T. (2013). Crossfit-based high-intensity power training improves maximal aerobic fitness and body composition. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(11), 3159–3172. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318289e59f [Retracted in 2017; retained for historical quotation context.]

Weisenthal, B. M., Beck, C. A., Maloney, M. D., DeHaven, K. E., & Giordano, B. D. (2014). Injury Rate and Patterns Among CrossFit Athletes. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967114531177

CrossFit. CrossFit Methodology. https://www.crossfit.com/crossfit-methodology

CrossFit. (2024, April 10). CrossFit Terms Explained. https://www.crossfit.com/essentials/crossfit-terms-explained

Pull Quotes:

“Some detractors may even describe the training community as having somewhat of a cult following and behavior.”

“CrossFit combines varied functional movements performed at relative intensity.”

“Some participants value CrossFit’s community, variety and skill-building.”