I wanted to comment on this recent post from Crossfit Endurance (CFE). The post highlights the success of one the CFE marathon runners. When I clicked on the highlighted link, it discussed the results of other marathoners using CFE.
Here are marathon finishing times from a group using CFE, by gender:
- M, 3:13
- F, 3:20
- F, 3:49
- F, 3:50
- F, 4:21
- F, 4:32
- F, 4:33
Some of these participants were first-time marathoners, and some were not. The average time for males was the one finisher at 3:13. The average time for females was 4:04.
Now let's compare these results to those from the Furman Institute of Running & Scientific Training study in 2005. In the study, again some of the participants were first-time marathoners, and some were not. The average time for males was 3:35, and the average time for females was 4:02.
In terms of the males, you can't make a valid comparison with only one male for CFE. One of the male finishers in the Furman study had a time of 2:57, which shows one end of the spectrum. For the females, there were six finishers for CFE which makes for a decent comparison group.
The average time for females in the Furman study was 2 minutes lower than the CFE group. It's safe to say that there is no significant difference between the two. Given the case, why is CFE billing itself as a revolution?
I don't think CFE is a bad program, but the marketing of it makes it sound like they've reinvented the wheel. As far as I can tell, the results are consistent with other modern training programs. Yes, CFE is better than going out and pounding out 150 slow miles every week. But it does not seem significantly better than other programs that incorporate intervals and faster running.