Specificity! I am a firm believer in the individualized approach to exercise. With the exception of sports teams, it is rare that individuals have similar fitness needs. Even athletes have variable needs based upon positional roles, history of injury, specific weaknesses, previous training, etc. The challenge for the strength coach is to meet the needs of every athlete within the presented constraints. (I know of no collegiate strength and conditioning coach who is underworked.) Similarly, personal trainers and therapists will rarely have the same exercise prescription for multiple clients. Thus, I am not a big fan of the workout-of-the-day (WOD) approach that has become so common in the fitness industry. This is not to say that there are not some benefits. As with anything, there are pros and cons to the WOD approach to exercise.
Cons. As mentioned above, exercise requires specificity—i.e., the body system makes specific adaptations to imposed demands. So, a generalized approach to fitness is likely to miss some critical aspects of the individual fitness needs. WODs are convenient for the trainer and not always of the greatest benefit for the exerciser. General training produces general results.
There are distinct components to health-related and motor skill-related physical fitness that are optimally addresses individually—preferably in separate exercise sessions. Often, poorly constructed WODs and/or WODs that are poorly matched to individual goals fail to produce significant gains in any body system (e.g., produce minimal strength/hypertrophy gains and/or minimal cardiorespiratory improvements).
Pros. WODs are efficient for the more casual exerciser. There is no thinking required on the part of the exerciser—just show up and do what you are told. Exercises, sets, repetitions, etc. are predetermined. WODs are usually written up on a whiteboard (hopefully with at least some forethought) and the exerciser follows at his or her own pace or as a class.
I consider the greatest benefit of the WOD approach is the sense of community that develops and the subsequent exercise adherence that results. Programs, like CrossFit, have seen exceptional levels of adherence because of the sense of belonging and relationship that their members experience. Done well, WODs can accomplish what exercise professionals have long struggled do successfully—get people to exercise regularly with “cult-like” adherence.
I like the WOD approach for high-intensity interval training (HIIT, e.g., spin cycling classes) and high-intensity interval resistance training (HIIRT, e.g., “burst” training). HIIT can certainly benefit cardiorespiratory fitness (i.e., VO2max) and can be individualized in a class setting via the “relative” intensity of the lead or prescribed intervals. HIIRT requires a bit more care and consideration. It is critical that the fitness leader be disciplined to observe for the breakdown of technique due to fatigue—to minimize the risk of injury. When performed safely, HIIRT can significantly affect body composition. The improvements in cardiorespiratory function are likely to be minimal. Thus, more specific “cardio” exercise should be included. Likewise, HIIRT is less effective for building muscle strength and muscle size. It is, however, great for burning fat while maintaining muscle mass.
There is a place for the WOD in the weekly exercise plan. If time and goals are limited several well-planned (and supervised) HIIRT WODs may be all that the exerciser has time to schedule. If greater gains are desired, however, time should be dedicated to a balance of weight training, cardio, and HIIRT—dependent upon one’s time constraints.
Exercise should not be blindly prescriptive. The individualized approach will always be superior to the general WOD approach. Use your time wisely.
Be your best today; be better tomorrow.
Carpe momento!