I’ve been contemplating writing this article for some time, unsure of how it would be received. CrossFit athletes are renowned for their unwavering work ethic. We take pride in the intensity of our workouts and the remarkable results we achieve. Therefore, a discourse on reducing workout intensity may spark controversy. I anticipate differing opinions, and that’s perfectly fine. In fact, I welcome the debate. Our community is brimming with exceptionally fit, astute experts, and I eagerly await their insights on this topic.
Let me state my argument up front, and then I’ll explain my thought process.
The high-intensity aspect of CrossFit does not mean every workout is done at 100% intensity. If you are doing CrossFit for long-term health and fitness and improved quality of life, you should not redline every day in the gym.
Intensity and CrossFit
CrossFit is unique among fitness programs in that we define our terms. We were the first to produce a useful, measurable definition of fitness and health. Along the way, we clearly defined functional movements and provided decades of programming to demonstrate variance. We also defined intensity. In CrossFit, intensity is identical to power output or how much work is accomplished per unit of time. In the gym, CrossFit athletes measure how long a workout takes or how much work is done in the time allocated to measure intensity. Assuming all external factors like range of motion, body weight, and workout setup are consistent, if you do more rounds of Cindy in 20 minutes or shave tenths of a second off your Fran time, your power output — or intensity — is higher.
Intensity is one of the central tenets of the CrossFit methodology because—as Eric O’Connor beautifully described in his article “Is CrossFit Too Intense For Me?”—it drives the tremendous results our athletes achieve. Training intensely or at higher power outputs is key to improving any measurable fitness or health marker, such as strength, endurance, or body fat.
When discussing intensity, it’s also essential to understand the concept of relative intensity. High intensity means something different for every athlete based on their physical and psychological tolerances. For example, if a top CrossFit Games competitor goes all out, they can complete Fran in about 2:20. If I go all out, I’ll finish my last pull-up near the six-minute mark. The competitor’s power output measured in watts is much higher than mine because they completed the same work faster. However, regardless of power output, our relative intensity is the same. We both gave everything we had.
Intensity In Practice
CrossFit is constantly varied functional movements executed at high intensity. We covet the intensity for the results it delivers. However, going all out every workout (four to six times per week) doesn’t work for most of us. This is a recipe for burnout, injury, and decreased fitness and health markers.
So what should intensity look like in practice, on a day-to-day basis, in the gym, park, or garage? If your focus is long-term fitness and health, like it is for most of us, most workouts should be done somewhere around 70-85% intensity. The focus should be on smooth, excellent technique while flirting with an uncomfortable pace. I know Coach Greg Glassman recently said he’s looking for A- technique and A+ speed. Borrowing his terminology, as a conservative coach, I might lean more toward A technique and B+ speed for most workouts, especially with newer, less healthy, or older athletes and those recovering from injury or coming off a long layoff. This approach not only reduces the risk of injury and burnout but also ensures steady progress and long-term health.
Occasionally, there are opportunities to ramp up intensity, such as during thoughtfully programmed benchmark tests or when we feel great. On these days, we can push toward 100% while maintaining excellent technique. However, these days are exceptions, perhaps occurring two or three times a month, and even less often as we age or face external stresses. More frequently, we’ll encounter days where we’re tired, stressed, or not at our best. On these days, lower intensity or simply going through the motions may be better for our long-term fitness and health.
Health is Not a Sprint
A wise track coach once told me a great way to get very strong over the long term is to make medium weights feel like light weights. Instead of pushing maximal weights regularly, spend time squatting, pressing, cleaning, deadlifting, or snatching a particular weight, and you will master it. You will be able to perform the movement at that weight with excellent technique all the time. Then, you can bump the weight up a little bit and start the process over. Basically, we’re blending skill work and strength work. Over the course of weeks, months, and years, tremendous strength can be built in this manner with less risk of injury and burnout. We can use the same philosophy for CrossFit met-cons and earn the right to work out with high intensity.
For a beginner, this means scaling loads and volume of sets and reps as needed while setting baseline numbers in your workouts. The priority of each workout is refining the mechanics of fundamental movements and practicing them consistently to develop a certain level of mastery. For now, intensity takes a back seat. This means the focus is NOT on getting the best time possible or maximizing reps or rounds. Technique is paramount! During this process, which may last a year or more, a coach’s guidance on nudging intensity slowly without compromising mechanics and consistency is indispensable. Workout scores are recorded purely as data points, not as an assessment of whether our performance was good or bad. While recording our numbers on the whiteboard inevitably urges us to increase intensity (athletes will die for points, after all), we must be careful not to ignore the process and focus solely on results. Recording and measuring progress allows us to analyze our fitness to learn where to improve. In this way, the competition results-based fitness fosters is an excellent motivator for us to eat better, sleep better, do extra technique work, and work on our weaknesses. However, when competition spurs an athlete to push through an unsustainable sequence of workouts performed at too high an intensity, burnout, injury, and performance degradation may result. Though the after-effect of pure exhaustion post-workout may be missed when intensity is decreased a bit, novice athletes can take solace in knowing that even at lower intensities, their workout scores will inevitably improve as they practice the movements.
For a more advanced CrossFit athlete who has achieved a high level of competency in the movements and can push to greater levels of intensity (i.e., is more comfortable with uncomfortable) without letting technique degrade to any significant or unsafe degree, we can use past results to calculate a ballpark score as one factor to guide that day’s performance. For example, if an athlete’s all-time best performance in Fran is 3 minutes, 80% of this all-out effort is 3:45. Depending on a whole host of other factors — sleep, nutrition, stress, fatigue, current fitness level — the athlete can decide what intensity level they want to hit, but the 3:45 time provides a solid target for high intensity and excellent technique. Calculating our 80% intensity for all the workouts we regularly repeat also gives us a good gauge for approaching workouts we have not seen before, allowing us to find that sweet spot of great movement coupled with a somewhat uncomfortable speed.
Regardless of experience level, the trip to the gym and the warm-up are excellent times for an athlete to assess their physical and mental state and start planning scaling and intensity options for the workout. Again, newer athletes should prioritize movement mechanics rather than intensity and take small breaks as needed during the workout to prevent their technique from faltering. More experienced athletes can determine if they are going to push into the 80% high-intensity zone, back off a little bit, or go for a rare all-out effort. Even as the workout starts, the athlete can continue to “auto-regulate” their intensity based on the physical and mental challenge and feedback from a coach. At the end of the workout, the score is recorded to provide another data point to guide skill acquisition and intensity in future sessions.
The Dose Makes the Poison
With training intensity, a key component for maximizing the results, some might believe that not going all out on each workout will blunt adaptation. Over the long term, too much intensity, too soon, and too often causes more problems. Years ago, Coach Glassman warned that if someone attacked the Workout of the Day all out every day, they would be completely burnt out within six weeks. I’ve seen this happen to very gifted athletes who maximize intensity in every workout. Eventually, their performance drops, no matter how hard they push themselves. Their fitness decreases, too, and the only “cure” for this type of nervous system and metabolic fatigue is an extended period of low-intensity work that allows the body to recover. This is a case of three steps back for two steps forward.
Improperly dosing intensity can also lead to knee, shoulder, back, and hip aches and pains that make us feel old and unfit. Displaying fitness in the gym or the real world is difficult when we’re hurting. It’s rather telling that Rich Froning, in a recent Mayhem podcast, made the statement about his training for the CrossFit Games: “I’ve destroyed my body for 13 years. Am I going to pay for it later? Yeah.” A different approach is warranted when our goal is long-term health and fitness, not competitive greatness. The body needs time to recover from both intensity and volume of work. Modulating intensity as needed from workout to workout is a great way to get fit while reducing the risk of musculoskeletal breakdown that will lead to forced reduced intensity or time off.
Finally, pushing maximal intensity every day is very taxing mentally. We’ve all had those days when we just can’t bring ourselves to work out because we don’t want to feel the pain. When that dread results in us missing several workouts or quitting CrossFit altogether, our fitness takes a big hit. We would be much better off not skipping workouts and doing them at a lower intensity or simply just going through the motions. Combining low, medium, and high-intensity outputs allows us to avoid all of the pitfalls of too much intensity and ensures continued progress for years.
As I said at the beginning of the article, I’m not sure how these thoughts will resonate with other CrossFit coaches and athletes I greatly admire. This is NOT a criticism of the CrossFit methodology, which has produced amazing fitness and health results for hundreds of thousands of people. These are simply my observations as a CrossFit athlete and coach on implementing the methodology for those looking to optimize their fitness for the long term. This is advice I would give myself if I were starting over and that I follow today. None of us do CrossFit to build our fitness over 30 or 75 or 236 days. Instead, we are engaged in a lifelong commitment to increase our work capacity. By applying intensity judiciously, we can sustain long periods of progress, avoid burnout, decrease the risk of injury, and enjoy the process. This sounds like a solid approach for kicking ass.
3-2-1 Go!
what’s your experience with intensity?
- Has your relationship with intensity changed over time?
- What factors make you push intensity even when your body tells you not to?
About the Author
Stephane Rochet is a Senior Content Writer for CrossFit. He has worked as a Flowmaster on the CrossFit Seminar Staff and has over 15 years of experience as a collegiate/tactical strength and conditioning coach. He is a Certified CrossFit Trainer (CF-L3) and enjoys training athletes in his garage gym.
Comments on CrossFit: How Much Intensity Is the Right Amount of Intensity?
Hoje, após 12 anos praticando CrossFit e 10 como anos como treinador e dono de afiliado minha relação com a intensidade mudou muito. Oriente meus alunos a treinar de 4 a 5 vezes na semana com intensidade moderada e alta, mas o principal é escutar o corpo e treinar de forma inteligente, priorizando uma boa técnica, mas se mantendo no limiar de esforço. Os resultados com essa abordagem mais “cautelosa” em relação a intensidade diária rendeu melhores resultados, menos lesões e alunos mais fiéis.
This is a great and long overdue article. CrossFit has some great educational content. But come on, Glassman was not among the first to produce a useful, measurable definition of fitness and health. I did fitness tests that measured my work capacity across broad time and modal domains during PE classes in the 70s!!!
I think Glassman defined intensity as power output to differentiate CF from the low power output activities (BB and moderate intensity cardio) that most people were doing in the "Globo Gyms". However power output is a measure of what we call "external load". The stimulus for adaptations is how the athlete responds to it, which is the "internal load" or "relative intensity". Glassman trashed measures of relative intensity like RPE but he was wrong about it. Measuring external load is important, but measuring internal load is as if not more important.
The fact you expected criticism about this article tells a lot about the attitudes of many with the CF community. Fortunately there are many others, you included, who are happy to challenge the dogma and make sure the CF methodology evolves for the better. I have seen many OGs (for example Pat Sherwood) saying similar things: going all out all the time is not sustainable. Even going high intensity all the time is not sustainable. That's why even Olympic athletes include some moderare intensity sessions. We have known these for decades. This is not to say that high intensity is not important, far from it. There is lots of evidence that high intensity training is effective and safe even in people with serious conditions when applied properly. In one study, we successfully applied HIIT during dialysis in people with renal failure! However we also need to consider that intensity is also related to the specificity of the stimulus and, therefore, of the adaptations over time. Moderate intensity exercise, especially if prolonged, induces adaptations that high intensity work does not. That's why it should be included in a GPP program
Interesting read! Finding the right balance with intensity is so important—it’s easy to push hard, but knowing when to scale back can make a huge difference in preventing burnout and injuries.
Dourado Auto Service is a leading Store for luxury car accessories & Auto Parts in Dubai, offering a curated selection of premium automotive products.
This is great!
I was a beginner and I’m very much 0 or 100. I would get this feeling of not wanting to go workout, because of the intensity. I’m about to return but have had the same feelings, that’s why this article was great in giving me permission to go with less intensity and more consistency.
Great article!!
Great insights Stephane! Purposefully dosing intensity is essential for optimizing health and performance. As a 10-year CrossFit athlete and founder of University Place CrossFit, which I’ve led since 2017, I’ve experienced firsthand how critical it is to balance intensity as it relates to Heart Rate Zones. I love to go full send during WOD's but I found that consistently training in peak heart rate zones led to a performance plateau and elevated cortisol levels, which became evident through bloodwork earlier this year.
Since then, I’ve adjusted my programming by limiting 'redline' sessions to 1-2 times per week, incorporating 70-85% RPE training 2-3 times weekly, and adding 2-3 Zone 2 cardio sessions (60-70% of max HR). This shift has significantly improved my energy levels and recovery, culminating in recent all time PR's—a 275lb Power Clean and 16 unbroken strict handstand push-ups. Everyone is unique and I agree that age, nutrition, sleep, stress and recovery protocols are key variables for how hard someone can push themselves and still get a positive adaptation. Overtraining = under recovering.
The science clearly shows the health and VO2 max benefits of Zone 2 cardio, but many CrossFit athletes struggle with moderating their intensity for longer periods of exercise. Embracing varied heart rate zones with the same commitment to variation that defines CrossFit enables a well-rounded and sustainable approach to fitness. Repeated high-intensity training loses impact if dosed too often. Balancing intensity fosters resilience and longevity across our community.
Having been in the fitness space for 30 years which includes 12 years coaching CrossFit and building a CrossFit affiliate, this is a refreshing article!
The main thing I have learnt to date is that people don’t know how to exercise and it is our job as coaches/trainers to teach them. We must look at each workout, understand the intention, stimulus timeframe, workout format, specific exercises/skills involved, possible cautions (high volume on particular body parts/loading). When all of this is considered we must look at all the participants in front of us in the brief for EVERY class and apply it to each individual. It’s a lot!
Teaching people the right intensity for them is the most important skill as a coach/trainer in my opinion. It’s what keeps people coming into the gym regularly because it’s controlling their response to exercise. Exercising regularly gets results. Of course, mechanics is always front and center and people expect to learn how perform exercises/skills BUT they are not expecting to learn about intensity or even understand it. Intensity needs to be talked about more these days and coaches need to learn how to apply it. Thank you for the article let’s keep the conversation going.
Sally Baldwin
These are the articles I love sharing in our gym's Facebook group!
Thanks for this great article. I was just wondering about intensity levels and how to apply them to different workouts and, above all, to understand why. I found a lot of answers here.
Great article Stephane no disagreement from me on the idea that redlining the engine all the time isn’t good for it. I think one of the most powerful aspects of our program is the measurement of the output leading to data driven fitness. As the other side of the same coin one the most dangerous things an athlete can do is chase the dragon of PRs and PBs every session. Well what else is there? As Nicole noted, this discussion lends itself to our charter: Mechanics, Consistency and then Intensity. When coaches can set expectations and targets around positions in or execution of the workout we layer on another variable to assess whether our athlete is progressing despite the wattage produced. An awareness of the messaging that is most influential for the coach or athlete can help. Are they clinging to “Be impressed by intensity not volume.” “Keep workouts short and intense..” these Glassmanisms are rooted in a single variable analysis of someone’s training. As James writes in his 2016 article, effective coaching is the cure all. I don’t think anyone would debate the physical reality that more work in less time is strictly better in the single dimension of work out efficacy if all other things are the same.
When we layer in training age for specific movements, injury history and importantly individual motivation on a given day I think we will find deliberate and intentional volume pretty impressive when an athlete does what the coach has prescribed for them informed by the workout of the day.
In CAP I have seen the intention of the workout described in terms of the expected time to completion for each piece or the workout as a whole. While this is useful for the coach planning the session it fails to inform the athlete of their physiological goal in each piece. Let’s bring back some of those competitive inefficiencies, hold on for big uncomfortable unbroken sets even though it may lead to a slower time or take a rest the set as soon as you feel your elbows flare on the press. In the first example the goal is some muscular endurance and in the second kinaesthetic awareness inside a workout setting. I believe with these extra layers of intention the coach will have a role beyond cheering and the athlete will see value in the workout beyond simply its capacity to decimate them.
Exceptional article Stephane; thank you for writing this!
I believe everything you have laid out still falls within our concept of relative intensity; perhaps this is taking a view across "all the years of a human life" rather than an individual workout or a few workouts. The question and answer I keep coming back to is..."How much intensity is the right amount of intensity?"—only the amount that maximizes work capacity across broad time and modal domains throughout life.
Sure, the goal is to maximize relative intensity within each workout, but if we zoom out across an individual's life, the goal is to maximize the total intensity someone can put forth across all the years of their life. So if aiming to go full send five days a week decreases your work capacity the following week, the next month, or over a year, a more aware and educated approach is needed. This is probably something that develops in an athlete with experience, knowledge, and study over time.
When you're 20, you can go full send a lot more often (and I would argue that you should) but as you age, your relative intensity will evolve. But it should all tie back to maximizing your work capacity.
CrossFit has long had to fight the battle that "we care about intensity above all else." We know that nothing could be further from the truth, but that doesn't mean we all don't need a reminder about our charter of mechanics, consistency - and then, only then - intensity.
I would argue that many athletes don't spend enough time with consistency to earn the intensity - either through avoiding movements that are complex (and in turn, missing out on variance...and lower intensity through practice and learning) or through prioritizing intensity over all else. This isn't solely an athlete problem - it needs to be coached, educated, and practiced for an athlete to trust it to be true.
I do think there's a fine line between finding relative intensity over time and giving in to "checking the box" mentality. We've all been there when we don't have a lot of sleep, our nutrition is off, and we warm up a 5x5 back squat only to find we feel AMAZING and go on to hit a lifetime PR. I get that is the exception and not the rule but...deciding to check the box on the car ride to the gym is very different than feeling it out in the gym, during warm-up and making the informed decision based on how your body is feeling, reacting, and working to drive the day's effort.
Keep the articles coming Stephane!!
Nicole, so many wonderful nuggets in your response! The thought that intensity needs to be earned through time spent on mechanics and developing consistency is so critical for long term success. As athletes, we want it all now, but that's a trap. There's no shortcut. And using the warm-up to assess how you feel that day is such a great strategy. Thank you for weighing in!
I completely agree, Nicole!
I like to think of it as a macro-version of pacing in a long workout. The goal isn't to go as fast as possible in the first 90 seconds and then limp through the next 20 minutes, the goal is to sustain a high average power output throughout. Similarly, our goal shouldn't be to give 100% for a week, a month, or even a year before burning out, but to achieve appropriate intensity that allows to continue to maximize work capacity across broad time and modal domains throughout the years.
I think sometimes the problem can be traced back to a conflation of high intensity with maximal intensity. If relative intensity is a scale from 0 to 100, high (as compared to low or moderate) should be a range of approximately 70-100%. Some days might be 90% while others might be 75%, but they are still high intensity. Then we can use low and moderate intensity sessions for recovery or neurological practice, which many coaches and gyms seem to have forgotten is an important element of the ten general skills (but that's an entirely different discussion).
Thank you for being a beacon of virtuosity in the CrossFit coaching community.
This article really puts into words what I have seen in my own training over the course of 12 years and something that beginners and veterans alike can benefit from hearing. I have done CrossFit through two pregnancies, deaths of family members, job loses, you name it. Intensity is always relative and it’s mostly relative to the stage of life you are currently experiencing. Consistency pays dividends and consistency means varying levels of intensity tailored to a particular season in your life. I can’t tell you how many times I have “just shown up” to the gym with no expectations other than survive the hour. It’s always the best hour regardless if I have 50% to give or 100%. Just show up, give what you have, repeat.
Such and important and hot topic in the space right now. I actually plan on doing a podcast tomorrow addressing the same thing, so this is very timely. I agree so much with most of what you said here. Relative instensity is something that I think is very misunderstood or not considered at all. I also believe that relative intensity can change from day to day for most people (like you said). I agree that most people depending on factors like current life-stage, stress, sleep, "training age" and background, etc - can probably hit #fullsend 2-4 times per week. And results would be better with 2 days of really pushing intensity + 4 days of working hard but not selling out - than the inevitable 6 days of trying to hit full intensity and burning out (people end up feeling like they are giving their all - but are so fried it's not really what they are capable of with better recovery). I would also like to add - though - that like testing a TRUE one rep max - knowing what ALL OUT intensity feels like and developing the ability to even express that intensity is a skill. This is why I am careful not to attach percentages (lifting or otherwise) to the general population in most cases. I find we can get more out of our athletes on a heavy day is to encourage them to go heavy for 5 sets of 3 THAT DAY - which may turn out to be 75% or 90% of their "one rep max" because a true one rep max is hard to come by. Similarly - most people have never felt 100% intensity - so encouraging 80% of what may already have been 80% is not something I typically would do. But that just might be food for thought. We all have seen many athletes say they were "in so much pain" during the workout - meanwhile cracking jokes during the 1 minute rest.....if you catch my drift. There are also workouts that lend better to people experiencing what that might feel like - without needing to worry so much about injury and form breakdown. Sprint repeats, row repeats, assault bike repeats. Burpee + air squat intervals. Sleds. Thanks for the discussion! I think it's great that we are continuing to talk about how to message the intensity piece of CF properly.
Miranda, this is such a great, thoughtful response from an OG CrossFitter. I really like what you said about not relying on percentages (which change day to day due to a variety of reasons) but instead focusing on "heavy" sets for that day, regardless of what percentage that equates to, with technique guiding what heavy looks like. And I love youtr thought on using workouts where the technical elements aren't high - sleds, burpees etc. - as a great way to teach hitting full send safely. Thank you for your thoughts and for adding to the discussion!
Excellent article. We should aim for maximizing intensity over the span of a lifetime. That typically will not mean maximizing the intensity you can produce for THIS month, THIS week, or many times even THIS day. Deload weeks can be very helpful... in my competitive CrossFit days I would take a deload week (approx 70% volume and 70% intensity) once every 12 weeks. The last decade+ i take a deload every 4 weeks... so 1 week a month is easyish. Another way to attack this is to program workouts/ choose exercises that do not allow you to produce high intensity (FxD/Time) for example rope climbs do not produce intensity like thrusters. Also the exercises your not good at tend to slow you down ... these programming strategies can allow you to still train hard(RPE) but not actually hit the intensity (Kinematics) that over tax your physiology.
When someone who has the CrossFit and coaching cred of Josh Everett speaks, we should all listen. Deload weeks aren't programmed by CrossFit - we don't know your schedule. So we should all learn from Josh and think about how we might decrease intensity and volume periodically with on eye on carrying progress and overall intensity much further out in the long-term instead of burning out in the short-term. Thank you for sharing your wisdom, Josh!
one of the best articles I've ever read in the journal to date
Thank you for the kind words, Enrico! How do you manage your intensity in workouts as you strive for results over the long term?
CrossFit: How Much Intensity Is the Right Amount of Intensity?
23