The article header reads "Super Athletes: Older competitors are defying the laws of science and aging. Heed their secrets and you can too." It had nice pictures, too. Pictures of a tennis player, a swimmer, a cyclist, a sprinter and a marathoner. Runners, swimmers, cyclists - arguably the sprinter is a high intensity athlete, to be sure. Given that, the face of "super athletes" reflect the conventional thought that running, biking, swimming & tennis account for elite fitness. This despite a quote in the article by Dr. Hirofumi Tanaka, director of Cardiovascular Aging Research at University of Texas, Austin, who states: "I don't know many athletes of any age who love intervals, but they are important if you want to compete as you get older."
Does this mean I'm not happy that these folks are profiled and rewarded for all their hard work? No, their commitment and performance impress me. I'm not terribly surprised or even critical of the article's content and intent. My thoughts as I read the article actually led me in a different direction.
Most of you have heard me state that CrossFit's emphasis on elite fitness and the CF Games doesn't really resonate with me as much as the way this training approach can be used by everyday people everywhere to "not suck at life." Let me quickly back that up with a clear acknowledgement that I do not suppose to be smarter that the folks at CF HQ who pour time and effort into the games, and see that event as important and worth the time, effort and resources. It is their company, their watch, their call and I appreciate everything that organization has done in the past and continues to do for all of us. I've just never really understood or appreciated the fuss and press that goes into the CF Games. Until now.
The CF HQ staff, including founder Greg Glassman, tout that they identify "the fittest male and female on the planet." Pretty big boast, admittedly, but let's pause a second. What if, someday, a Master's athlete that excelled at the CF Games made the cover of AARP daring any other "super athlete" to match his/her performance in a contest that included endurance, strength, power, agility, coordination, etc. Who do you think would be the overall top dog? My money is on the athlete that engages in mixed modal, mixed conditions training under high intensity interval style structure. And the event that identifies that person with extraordinary, arguably top level fitness is......a marathon? a triathlon? a swim meet? a tennis match? a 100 yard sprint? Or a group of events that blended lifting, running, explosive power events and coordinated movement into a multi-event contest.
That, I believe, is the value of the games: to create a shift in thinking around what constitutes a Super Athlete. Endurance hounds have loads of stamina, to be sure, and cardiovascular fitness. With that as a given, they are typically tight and weak and not very powerful. The Games create the kind of events that help to redefine elite fitness. It is counter cultural but obvious when you consider the kind of performance required to finish at the top.
So, I'm all done bemoaning the attention that the Games receive. I'll continue to use this approach to program workouts that create well above average conditioning across several domains for our own little cohort. But, after today, there is a real shift in my attitude toward the CF Games. I can understand their value better now as a tool to shift the emphasis our culture places on endurance events as a showcase of elite fitness. Perhaps someday, the definition of a super athlete will look more like a decathlon athlete - elite performance across several contests, instead of elite performance as a one trick pony.
Of course, one thing I won't move away from - never mind the young punks - show me the next cover of AARP for the fittest Masters athletes on the planet!
