Thank you for 20 years. Here’s a look at the past, present and future of Catalyst Athletics.
Twenty years of Catalyst Athletics.
If you’ve spent any meaningful amount of time around Olympic weightlifting, CrossFit, or strength and conditioning over the last two decades, there’s a pretty good chance Catalyst Athletics has influenced you somehow, whether you realized it or not.
Greg Everett founded Catalyst in 2006, and what followed became far more than a weightlifting gym.
Catalyst became a team. A methodology. A library. A publishing platform. A coaching resource. And, ultimately, one of the institutions that helped make quality Olympic weightlifting education accessible to athletes and coaches around the world.
Long before every coach had an Instagram account and every training question returned a thousand competing answers, Greg was doing the decidedly less glamorous work of teaching.
Writing, coaching, filming exercise demos, developing programs, publishing The Performance Menu back in the day, writing Olympic Weightlifting: A Complete Guide for Athletes & Coaches and building an enormous free library of weightlifting education.
And, in 2013, producing American Weightlifting, a film he conceived years earlier and essentially wrote, filmed, directed, edited, produced, and even scored himself because he believed the story of American weightlifting deserved to be told.
Catalyst itself evolved along the way. A commercial gym and a competitive team. From Cali to Oregon. Different athletes, different eras, different challenges. But the underlying commitment to the craft remained remarkably consistent.
And I think craft is the right word.
One of the things I’ve always appreciated about Greg’s work is that it reflects something I believe deeply about coaching: principles matter, but principles still have to be applied to an actual human being.
Technique matters, strength matters, programming matters, assessments matters and experience all matter. And eventually, the coach has to take all of those things and decide what this athlete needs right now.
That’s the art.
It’s one reason Greg and Catalyst have found their way into my own writing on programming and coaching. When discussing the people who helped shape modern thinking about weightlifting and strength and conditioning, Greg belongs in that conversation, not because he invented the snatch or discovered progressive overload, but because he has spent twenty years organizing, refining, teaching, documenting, and sharing the craft.
And that’s a contribution worth recognizing.
Greg has now released a documentary telling the story of Catalyst Athletics, and if you’ve ever learned from one of his articles, watched one of those exercise demos, followed one of his programs, read one of his books, listened to him talk weightlifting, or simply benefited from the broader weightlifting culture Catalyst helped build, it’s worth taking the time to watch.
Twenty years is a hell of a lot of reps.
Congratulations to Greg, Aimee, the athletes, coaches, contributors, and everyone else who has been part of the Catalyst Athletics story.
Here’s to the next chapter. The principles remain constant. The application is the art.
And few people have spent more time documenting and developing that art than Greg. Cheers to another 20 years!
Understanding Maintenance Volume (MV), Minimum Effective Volume (MEV), Maximum Adaptive Volume (MAV), Maximum Recoverable Volume (MRV), and Everything Between
Growth is determined not by how much work you perform, but by how much productive work you can recover from.
Introduction
Walk into almost any Olympic Weightlifting or power lifting gym, CrossFit affiliate, or even the standard Globo gym and you’ll eventually encounter two seemingly opposite philosophies.
One athlete believes progress comes from doing more: more sets, more repetitions, more accessory work, more conditioning, more training days. If some novel amount of work produces results, even more work should produce even better results.
Another takes almost the opposite approach: do as little as necessary to stimulate improvement, then get out and recover.
Curiously, both can point to successful athletes who appear to prove them right.
One can point to the CrossFit athlete training multiple sessions a day, the weightlifter accumulating hundreds of technically demanding repetitions each week, or the bodybuilder thriving on German high volume training. Then another points to an elite powerlifter progressing on surprisingly few max-effort lifts, or an experienced weightlifter whose training becomes more productive after unnecessary volume is removed.
So which approach is correct? Both and neither. Why? Because the question itself is flawed.
The body does not respond to volume in absolute terms. It responds to recoverable stress.
That distinction changes everything.
The objective of training is not to perform the greatest amount of work possible. It is to perform the greatest amount of productive work possible: enough to create the desired adaptation without accumulating so much fatigue that additional work stops contributing meaningfully to it.
There is a difference between training that challenges your capacity and training that simply consumes it.
Understanding where that line exists, and recognizing that it shifts according to the athlete, the adaptation being pursued, the type of training being performed, and where the athlete is in their development, is one of the most valuable skills an athlete or coach can develop.
This is where the Volume Spectrum begins.
More Is Better, Until It Isn’t
One of the oldest assumptions in strength training is beautifully simple: if ten sets build muscle, twenty must build even more. And if twenty works, why not thirty?
The problem is that biological markers rarely, like life, move in straight lines.
The human body is governed by diminishing returns. Initially, increasing training volume can produce greater adaptation. Strength improves, muscle grows, work capacity increases, and technique becomes more refined. But eventually those returns begin to diminish. Progress slows, then plateaus, and if volume continues increasing without sufficient recovery, performance can begin moving backward.
More work has become less productive.
The irony is that many dedicated athletes interpret this decline exactly backward. Feeling stalled, they assume they simply need to work harder, so they add another exercise, another set, another conditioning session, another “finisher.”
Instead of solving the problem, they’ve increased the very stress that caused it.
The Volume Spectrum
Training volume can be understood through four useful landmarks along a continuum. These should not be treated as rigid physiological thresholds or universal numerical prescriptions, but as practical regions that help coaches think about the relationship between training stress and adaptation.
Quick Reference: Training Volume Landmarks
MV (Maintenance Volume): The minimum amount of training needed to maintain current performance and muscle mass. Used during periods of reduced training, deloads, or recovery phases.
MEV (Minimum Effective Volume): The lowest training dose that produces measurable progress or adaptation. Anything below this threshold will not drive improvement.
MAV (Maximum Adaptive Volume): The “sweet spot” where training volume is high enough to maximize gains without causing excess fatigue or risk of overtraining. This is where most productive training occurs.
MRV (Maximum Recoverable Volume): The upper limit of training volume that the body can adapt to and recover from. Exceeding this consistently leads to stagnation, regression, or injury.
In short:
MV: Enough to maintain, not improve.
MEV: The minimum to make progress.
MAV: The most productive range for gains.
MRV: The most you can recover from, not to be exceeded.
Maintenance Volume (MV)
Maintenance Volume is exactly what it sounds like: the minimum amount of work required to preserve a current level of adaptation.
Notice what it is not. Maintenance volume is not intended to produce meaningful improvement. It provides enough stimulus to prevent meaningful loss.
This matters more than many athletes realize because maintenance allows training resources to be reallocated. A competitive CrossFit athlete may temporarily reduce upper-body hypertrophy work while emphasizing Olympic lifting. A tactical professional preparing for selection may maintain maximal strength while substantially increasing endurance. An older adult may temporarily reduce overall workload while attempting to preserve existing strength and muscle mass.
Maintaining an adaptation generally requires less training than developing it in the first place. That principle becomes one of the coach’s most valuable tools because no athlete can emphasize everything simultaneously.
Sometimes maintaining one quality is precisely what allows another to improve.
Minimum Effective Volume (MEV)
MEV represents the lowest amount of training necessary to produce measurable improvement. Think of it as crossing the threshold where training moves beyond maintenance and begins providing enough stimulus for further adaptation.
Importantly, MEV is highly individual.
A novice lifter may stimulate meaningful progress with relatively little training. An experienced athlete may require substantially more work simply to continue improving. Training age changes the equation because the stronger, more conditioned, and more experienced you become, the greater the stimulus may need to be before the body has sufficient reason to adapt further.
Success changes the rules.
Maximum Adaptive Volume (MAV)
Maximum Adaptive Volume describes the region where training produces the greatest return relative to the fatigue it creates.
Not necessarily the most work. The best work you can do, achieving the intended stimulus, and recover from.
Most productive training should occur somewhere in this range. Performance improves, strength or work capacity develops, recovery remains manageable, technique stays relatively sharp, and the athlete remains capable of continuing to perform quality training.
That distinction matters. MAV is not defined by exhaustion, it’s defined by adaptation.
Maximum Recoverable Volume (MRV)
Eventually every athlete reaches a point where additional work creates more fatigue than useful adaptation. That upper boundary is Maximum Recoverable Volume.
MRV should not be treated as a target. It’s the ceiling.
Experienced athletes may intentionally approach that ceiling during concentrated training blocks before reducing workload and allowing accumulated fatigue to dissipate. Used carefully, periods of functional overreaching can have a place within training.
Living near or above MRV is another matter.
When training chronically exceeds the athlete’s ability to recover, familiar warning signs can begin appearing: declining performance, slower bar speed, persistent soreness or joint discomfort, deteriorating sleep, reduced motivation, worsening session quality, and increased susceptibility to minor illness.
The dedicated athlete may again interpret these symptoms as evidence that more work is required. Often the opposite is true.
Why These Landmarks Move
One of the biggest mistakes coaches make is treating volume landmarks as fixed numbers.
They aren’t.
Your MEV this year may not resemble your MEV five years from now. Your MRV during a period of low life stress may differ considerably from your MRV during a demanding work cycle, caloric deficit, competition season, or period of poor sleep. The amount of volume you can recover from for one physical quality may also differ substantially from what you can tolerate for another.
These landmarks move because the athlete moves. As the old saying goes, “You can’t be in fight shape all the time.”
Training Age
Beginners often require surprisingly little work to improve. Advanced athletes generally require a greater stimulus to continue adapting, while simultaneously becoming capable of creating considerably more stress during each hard working set.
Five sets of squats performed by an athlete squatting 135 pounds do not represent the same physiological event as five sets performed by an athlete squatting 500.
The volume may look identical on paper. The affect on the body is not.
Exercise Selection and Recovery Cost
Not all training stress is created equally.
Three sets of leg extensions, three sets of heavy back squats, three rounds of ring muscle-ups, ten minutes of EMOM barbell cycling, and a 5k row for time all qualify as training volume, but they do not impose the same demand.
Heavy compound lifting can create substantial mechanical and systemic fatigue. High-repetition gymnastics challenge local muscular endurance, connective tissue, grip, coordination, and the ability to maintain movement quality as fatigue (neurological and physical) accumulates.
Repeated cleans or snatches performed under metabolic fatigue combine muscular endurance with technical proficiency, strength, power, timing, and repeated force production. Longer aerobic work may create relatively little mechanical damage while still imposing substantial cardiorespiratory and metabolic demand.
This is why simply counting sets, repetitions, minutes, or meters can become misleading.
Programming volume requires understanding what quality the work is developing, how much useful stimulus it provides, and what it costs the athlete to recover from it.
The body doesn’t count reps, it accumulates stress.
Different Qualities Carry Different Costs
One of the greatest misconceptions in training is assuming every physical quality responds to volume in the same way.
It doesn’t.
Absolute strength and power require exposure to high levels of force and velocity. A strong baseline in movements such as squats, deadlifts, presses, pulls, and Olympic lifts provide a foundation from which explosive force can be expressed.
Muscular endurance requires something different: the local capacity of muscles and the nervous system controlling them to repeatedly produce useful contractions despite accumulating fatigue. In gymnastics, that may mean sustaining pull-ups, push-ups, toes-to-bar, handstand push-ups, or muscle-ups. With a barbell, it may mean repeatedly cycling cleans, snatches, thrusters, or shoulder-to-overhead movements while maintaining enough technical integrity to continue working efficiently.
Cardiorespiratory endurance and stamina place another demand on the athlete. Aerobic and anaerobic metabolism must continually provide energy across efforts lasting seconds, minutes, or hours, while the athlete develops the capacity to sustain output and recover between repeated demands.
Strength, power, muscular endurance, barbell endurance, cardiorespiratory endurance, and stamina coexist, but they are not interchangeable.
A CrossFit athlete preparing for competition may intentionally increase muscular endurance, barbell cycling, aerobic development, and repeated-effort aerobic power and capacity training while maintaining rather than maximizing absolute strength.
An Olympic weightlifter may do almost the opposite, allocating considerably more training toward strength, power, technical consistency, and the competition lifts. A tactical professional may require substantial strength alongside loaded movement, cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular stamina, and repeated performance under fatigue.
An older adult may prioritize strength, muscle mass, aerobic capacity, mobility, balance, and resilience because the objective is preserving capability and independence rather than maximizing competitive performance.
None of these athletes are training incorrectly, they’re simply solving different problems. Volume only becomes meaningful when viewed through the adaptation being pursued.
Movement Quality Changes the Cost of Volume
There is another variable that sets and repetitions alone cannot explain: movement quality.
Before deciding that an athlete needs more squats, gymnastics, barbell work, or conditioning, the coach must understand whether the athlete can efficiently perform the movements being prescribed.
Can they squat through the required range of motion while maintaining position? Can they establish a stable overhead position and safely receive a clean or snatch? Do they possess the ankle, hip, thoracic, and shoulder mobility required for the task? Can they maintain trunk control and coordination as fatigue accumulates?
Flexibility and mobility are not decorative qualities simply sprinkled in at the beginning or at the end of a training session. Adequate range of motion allows the athlete to access the positions required for the task(s); mobility adds the ability to control those positions. Coordination, agility, and balance allow the athlete to organize movement, redirect force, transition between tasks, and preserve technical integrity under changing conditions.
These qualities are essential and non-negotiable under fatigue.
Walking on your hands while fresh is one skill. Maintaining a handstand walk after heavy cleans and/or several minutes of high-output conditioning is another. The same principle applies to receiving a snatch in a deep overhead squat, transitioning efficiently through ring muscle-ups, or maintaining clean mechanics while breathing heavily and losing grip strength.
Poor movement quality increases the cost of work. Efficient movement reduces it.
Two athletes can therefore complete exactly the same prescribed volume while experiencing meaningfully different training loads.
Sometimes the fastest way to improve work capacity isn’t adding more work.
It’s reducing wasted movement. Or, what we used refer to in CrossFit as seeking Virtuosity in movement.
Volume Exists in Time
Twenty weekly sets performed in one session are not equivalent to twenty sets distributed across four sessions.
The same principle applies outside traditional resistance training. Twenty minutes of high-skill gymnastics performed while fresh is not equivalent to twenty minutes performed after heavy barbell work. Six sprint intervals distributed appropriately across a training week do not necessarily impose the same cost as those same intervals performed immediately after a demanding lower-body session.
Volume therefore cannot be separated from frequency, sequencing, and recovery. Where the work occurs matters, what happens before and after it matters. The body does not simply experience training volume. It experiences stress over time.
The Athlete Changes the Equation
Dynamis
Genetics, sleep, nutrition, age, life stress, occupation, training history, and movement quality all influence the amount and type of training an athlete can productively tolerate.
A firefighter working rotating night shifts may have a very different MRV from a college student sleeping nine hours each night. Two athletes possessing similar strength may tolerate very different amounts of training, and two athletes capable of completing the same workout may require entirely different interventions because their limiting factors are different.
One may lack absolute strength. Another may lack muscular endurance. Another may possess tremendous strength but poor muscular endurance. Another may have excellent local muscular endurance but insufficient aerobic capacity to recover between efforts. Another may simply move inefficiently which can make each training session twice as hard as it needs to be with the most basic of movements like air squats, pushups, pullups or burpees.
That’s why programming that ignores recovery outside the gym ignores half the equation.
And programming that ignores the individual misunderstands the other half.
Autoregulation: Listening Without Guessing
Perhaps the greatest weakness of rigid programming is the assumption that today’s body is identical to yesterday’s.
It isn’t.
Autoregulation recognizes that readiness fluctuates. Instead of blindly completing predetermined workloads regardless of performance, intelligent athletes and coaches adjust training according to relevant objective and subjective information.
Bar speed, repetitions in reserve, perceived exertion, heart-rate recovery, sleep quality, motivation, persistent soreness, session performance, movement quality, and technical deterioration under fatigue can all provide useful information.
No single metric tells the entire story. The purpose is not to replace programming with daily improvisation.
Autoregulation isn’t abandoning structure it’s allowing physiology to inform execution.
Deloads: Adaptation’s Forgotten Partner
One of the greatest misconceptions in training is that progress results from uninterrupted accumulation. It doesn’t. Progress often depends upon strategic reduction.
Deloads intentionally reduce training stress so accumulated fatigue can dissipate while much of the underlying adaptation is preserved. The purpose isn’t simply to rest. It is to restore the athlete’s capacity to perform productive training again.
A deload is not necessarily a step backward. Often it is the point at which accumulated fitness becomes visible beneath accumulated fatigue. We’ll discuss deloading, and its importance in more detail, later in this series
Pacing, Bottlenecks, and Productive Volume
More volume is rarely the solution to poor performance.
Sometimes the athlete needs more strength. Sometimes they need greater muscular endurance, a larger aerobic base, better gymnastic skill, more technical practice, or improved movement economy.
And sometimes they simply need to stop going out too hard. Pacing by itself is a performance skill. Athletes have to learn how much work can be performed now without any degradation in overall performance.
That means learning how quickly your breathing recovers, knowing when to stop just before grip or shoulder failure, or when technically efficient barbell cycling becomes increasingly expensive, and where local muscular fatigue or technical breakdown reliably appears.
Meaning, where is the bottleneck?
An athlete who repeatedly falls apart during the final five minutes of a 20min AMRAP, may not need another conditioning session. They may benefit more from not trying to win the first five minutes.
Likewise, an athlete struggling with high-repetition cleans may assume the problem is conditioning when insufficient absolute strength is making every repetition too expensive. Another athlete may possess enormous strength but lose time because poor economy of motion makes their receiving positions inefficient. Another may possess the engine and strength but lack the coordination required to transition efficiently between gymnastics and other external loading.
The workout reveals the symptom(s) and good assessments identify the cause(s). That distinction matters because training should target the bottleneck, not just accumulate more fatigue around it.
Volume Is a Conversation, Not a Competition
Perhaps the most important lesson from the Volume Spectrum is this: Volume is not something to maximize, it’s something to be optimized.
It’s a training resource to be allocated according to the athlete’s objectives, abilities, limitations, and capacity to recover. The strongest programs are rarely those that demand the most work. They are the ones that consistently produce the greatest useful adaptation relative to their cost.
That balance changes throughout a career. It changes across seasons and according to the physical quality being developed. It changes during periods of occupational stress, poor sleep, illness, caloric restriction, or competition preparation. And it changes as weaknesses become strengths and new bottlenecks emerge.
The best coaches therefore don’t ask: How much volume can this athlete survive?
They ask: How much productive volume can this athlete recover from?
And eventually, they ask an even better question: Where should that volume be spent?
Those are profoundly different questions. One measures work while the other considers adaptation. And that final question brings us to the next principle.
Looking Ahead
By now, we’ve moved far beyond the old argument that strength and conditioning somehow exist in opposition to one another.
We’ve seen that the interference effect is real but contextual. We’ve examined what performance programs actually look like and why athletes with very different objectives still develop many of the same fundamental physical qualities. And now we’ve established that even the amount of training itself exists along a spectrum, from the work required merely to maintain an adaptation to the upper boundary of what the athlete can productively recover from.
But volume alone still cannot tell us what to do.
Knowing that an athlete can recover from twelve hours of training each week tells us nothing about how those twelve hours should be spent.
Should we build absolute strength and power? Develop muscular endurance or barbell cycling skill? Expand cardiorespiratory capacity? Improve flexibility and movement efficiency? Develop coordination, agility, and balance? Improve movement quality or technical skill? Practice pacing? Attack a specific bottleneck?
Or should several of those qualities simply be maintained while training resources are concentrated on the one that matters most right now?
That is where coaching becomes something more than exercise selection.
A bodybuilder, Olympic weightlifter, tactical professional, CrossFit athlete, and older adult may all require some combination of strength, endurance, power, movement competency, and resilience.
But their needs vary in degree and application, not in kind. What changes is the proportion.
What changes is the priority. What also changes is the organization of stress across time.
Good programming does not ask which physical quality is universally best. It asks which quality matters most for this athlete, at this moment, how much of the others must be developed or preserved, where the athlete’s bottlenecks exist, and how those pieces can coexist without obscuring the primary objective.
That is why programming cannot be reduced to exercises written beneath the days of the week, and it certainly isn’t the random accumulation of difficult workouts.
Programming is the deliberate organization of stress in pursuit of adaptation.
It determines what to develop, what to maintain, what to temporarily deprioritize, how much work to perform, when to perform it, when to push, when to pull back, and when the athlete standing in front of you requires something different from what you originally wrote on paper.
In Part V of First Principles of Performance we discover how programming is not the science of writing workouts. It’s the strategic art of organizing adaptation, we bring those pieces together and examine how coaches actually organize adaptation: how strength, power, muscular endurance, cardiorespiratory capacity, movement competency, skill, recovery, and the individual athlete become a coherent training system rather than a collection of disconnected workouts.
Because knowing the physiology is important, knowing the how and why we utilize MGW is foundational, and how and why knowing all of the movements is elemental. But, knowing how to organize them around the needs of the individual is where knowledge becomes art.
Programming is not simply the science of writing workouts. It is the art of organizing adaptation. As always, the principles remain constant.
The application is the art. And that’s what quality coaching is all about.
The same physical qualities. Different priorities. Intelligent application.
Part I, we dismantled the myth.
Part II explained the physiology.
Part III shows how to construct the program.
The Central Thesis
Programming is not the indiscriminate accumulation of desirable exercises. It is the deliberate allocation of finite adaptive resources.
Every athlete would benefit from being stronger, more muscular, more powerful, better conditioned, more mobile, and more resilient. The problem is that no one can maximize every quality simultaneously.
A sound program therefore asks:
What must be developed?
What must be maintained?
What may be temporarily deprioritized and for how long?
What forms of training deliver the greatest benefit with the least conflicting fatigue?
That’s where the individual disciplines separate.
The Framework
Before discussing specific populations, let’s discuss a common framework that can apply to anyone.
The Primary Objective
The primary objective determines what receives the athlete’s best energy, highest-quality practice, and largest recovery allocation.
General physical preparedness (GPP): broad competence without narrow specialization
Tactical readiness: resembles GPP but carries a different standard. Failure is not an option
Olympic Weightlifting: technical power, speed, athleticism, superior flexibility + stability at end ranges of motion, and maximal strength
CrossFit: develop broad competitive capacity across the 10 general physical skills and also have “home run” ability in several of those skills
Bodybuilding: hypertrophy, size, and muscular symmetry
Healthy aging and Wellness: preservation of strength, power, muscle, mobility, and cardiorespiratory fitness
Developing Secondary qualities
Secondary qualities support the principal objective but must not compete excessively with it.
For example:
An Olympic weightlifter needs aerobic fitness for recovery and general wellness, but not the capacity to run a marathon.
A bodybuilder needs conditioning, but not enough aerobic volume to take away from building muscle.
A tactical athlete needs strength, but not at the expense of sharpness of movement, the ability to endure, and engage and disarm enemy combatants, i.e. maintain occupational durability.
A more mature adult needs to build and/or maintain muscle mass, but also enough power, balance, coordination, flexibility, and aerobic capacity to remain independent.
Establishing the minimum effective dose
Not every quality requires maximal training volume. Some qualities can be developed with relatively little work. Others can be maintained with substantially less work than was required to build them.
This allows a coach to place most resources toward the current priority while preserving other capacities.
Control competing fatigue
The interference problem is not merely molecular. It is mechanical, neurological, metabolic, and logistical.
Two sessions may theoretically coexist but still conflict because they stress:
The same musculature
The same joints and connective tissues
The same energy systems
The same neurological resources
The athlete’s limited sleep, time, and nutrition
This is why modality, sequence, volume, and timing matter.
Sequence the training week intelligently
The highest-priority, highest-skill, and highest-velocity work should generally occur when the athlete is freshest.
A useful hierarchy is:
Technical and explosive work
Heavy strength work
Hypertrophy or accessory work
Conditioning
Supplemental mobility and tissue restoration
That order can change according to the sport, but it gives us a sound starting point.
How the application changes
CrossFit: developing breadth without creating chaos
opt ccp brain on drugs
CrossFit presents one of the hardest programming problems because nearly every physical quality matters.
Why does CrossFit usually present a problem for most coaches? We begin with the 10 general physical skills. They are cardiovascular/respiratory endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility, power, coordination, agility, balance, and accuracy.
Cardiovascular/respiratory endurance – The ability of the body’s systems to gather, process, and deliver oxygen
Stamina – The ability of body systems to process, deliver, store, and utilize energy
Strength – The ability of a muscular unit, or combination of muscular units, to apply force
Flexibility – the ability to maximize the range of motion at a given joint
Power – The ability of a muscular unit, or combination of muscular units, to apply maximum force in minimum time
Speed – The ability to minimize the cycle time of a repeated movement
Coordination – The ability to combine several distinct movement patterns into a singular distinct movement
Agility – The ability to minimize transition time from one movement pattern to another
Balance – The ability to control the placement of the body’s center of gravity in relation to its support base
Accuracy – The ability to control movement in any given direction or at a given intensity”
So, a competitive CrossFit athlete requires:
Maximal and relative strength
Olympic lifting proficiency
Gymnastics skill
Aerobic capacity
Anaerobic power
Muscular endurance
Movement efficiency
Fatigue resistance
Rapid recovery between efforts, et cetera
The danger is confusing variety with randomness.
A well-designed CrossFit program should not simply expose the athlete to more movements and more suffering. It should develop identifiable qualities in a logical sequence.
Primary considerations
Strength and skill must be developed and then protected. Heavy lifting, technical precision/near perfection in the Olympic lifts, and advanced gymnastic skill should not routinely be performed after unnecessary fatigue.
Conditioning requires structure. The athlete needs distinct exposures to:
Low-intensity aerobic development
Threshold or tempo work
Short glycolytic intervals
Sprint interval training
Mixed-modal competition pieces
Not every metcon should destroy the athlete. Some sessions should develop pace, transitions, breathing control, or movement economy without producing maximal fatigue.
The interference effect is managed through planning. Heavy squats should not be surrounded by repeated high-volume running, jumping, and cycling sessions unless that fatigue is intentional.
CrossFit programming should develop the unknown and unknowable by building deep, transferable capacities, not by making every day unknowable to the coach.
Hypertrophy: condition the athlete without stealing from growth
For hypertrophy, the principal objective is clear:
Accumulate sufficient high-quality resistance-training volume to stimulate muscle growth, then recover from it.
Cardiovascular training should improve health, work capacity, and recovery without degrading lifting performance.
Best applications
Zone 2 bike/row/ski, jogging if you can maintain zone 2, or other similar cardiac demand work
MAP training or what I call “CrossFit aerobics”
Short tempo intervals
Carefully dosed sprint work
Sleds, carries, or machines that reduce eccentric loading
Conditioning performed after lifting or in separate sessions
Primary constraints
The bodybuilder or hypertrophy-focused lifter must manage:
Total lower-body fatigue
Caloric expenditure
Joint stress
Session duration
Interference with progressive overload
The appropriate amount depends on the athlete’s training age, caloric intake, exercise selection, and recovery.
The practical rule is straightforward:
Conditioning should leave the athlete better prepared to train, not chronically less capable of producing force and volume.
Bodybuilding: hypertrophy with greater specialization
Bodybuilding and general hypertrophy training overlap, but bodybuilding adds several constraints:
Muscular symmetry
Proportional development
High local training volume
Fatigue management across many isolation exercises
Contest preparation and caloric restriction
Preservation of muscle during fat loss
Cardio becomes more prominent during contest preparation, but recovery resources simultaneously decline.
That makes modality selection especially important.
Low-impact cardio often becomes preferable because it increases energy expenditure without imposing excessive eccentric loading or soreness. As calories fall, the athlete must also avoid the common mistake of increasing cardio aggressively while maintaining all previous lifting volume.
Bodybuilding programming is therefore an exercise in resource preservation:
Retain muscular tension
Preserve strength where possible
Manage fatigue
Increase energy expenditure gradually
Avoid turning every session into a test of willpower
The same physiology applies. The context changes.
General Physical Preparedness: build the widest useful base
unit
GPP is not preparation for nothing. It is preparation for many possible things.
The objective is broad physical competence:
Reasonable strength
Useful muscle mass
Aerobic fitness
Anaerobic capacity
Mobility
Coordination
Power
Durability
A GPP program should avoid the extremes of narrow specialization.
The athlete does not need:
Powerlifting-level maximal strength
Marathon-level endurance
Bodybuilding-level weekly muscle volume
Elite Olympic lifting technique
But the athlete benefits from meaningful development in all of them.
A balanced GPP week might include:
Two or three strength sessions
One power or sprint exposure
Two aerobic sessions
One higher-intensity conditioning session
Carries, sleds, jumps, throws, crawling, or climbing
Regular movement-quality work
This is where first principles matter most. GPP should create optionality: the ability to enter a more specialized phase without beginning from zero.
Tactical readiness. The real unknown and unknowable.
walk em down
Tactical readiness resembles GPP but carries a different standard. Failure is not an option.
The tactical athlete may need to:
Sprint – short, medium, and long distance, under load, taking and returning fire
Climb – 15 – 30 ft. ropes for multiple reps
Fight – from striking, to grappling, to weapons defense and disarming skill, and all must work under possible extreme fatigue
Drag or carry another person, possibly multiple people
Move large loads, long distance, and quickly
Operate for hours
Recover quickly
Make innumerable decisions under fatigue
Repeat near perfect efforts without warning
That’s the minimum standard and it requires far more than “being strong” or being “in shape” ever can.
The old saying is, the novice practices the movements so they don’t get them wrong. The professional has practiced them so often they can’t get them wrong.
Programming priorities
Relative and absolute strength
Loaded movement capacity
Grip and trunk endurance
Aerobic base
Martial Proficiency
Repeated sprint ability
Anaerobic endurance
Power and rate of force development
Durability under imperfect, and often austere, conditions
Recovery between multiple, unpredictable efforts
The program must also preserve technical and occupational skills. Fitness should support marksmanship, defensive tactics, movement, communication, and decision-making rather than degrading them through constant exhaustion.
The “unknown and unknowable” should be addressed by building robust capacities and occasionally testing their integration.
It should not justify random training. Uncertainty in the mission does not require uncertainty in the program. That should be one of the article’s anchor lines.
Olympic weightlifting: develop strength, speed, power, technical skill, and force production
Greg and Amiee – the early days of Catalyst Athletics
Olympic weightlifting is a highly technical, speed-strength, and power output sport.
Its primary qualities are:
Technical proficiency
Explosive strength
Maximal strength
Speed-strength
Superior positional mobility
Well-developed neuromuscular adaptation
Conditioning is useful, but it must remain subordinate to performance in the snatch and the clean and jerk.
Productive conditioning
Low-intensity aerobic work
Short cyclical intervals
Sled work, carries, et cetera
Limited sprint exposures whether it’s running, rowing, bike erg assault bike, or ski erg
General body weight flow/movement and recovery work
Common programming error
A weightlifter can become so conditioned that the conditioning begins to impair the quality of technical practice, squatting, pulling, and recovery.
Conversely, poor aerobic fitness can reduce training density and the ability to recover between sets and sessions.
The goal is not maximal endurance.
It is sufficient conditioning to support greater quantities of high-quality weightlifting.
Healthy aging: train what age attempts to take away
Healthy aging may be the most important application because nearly every major physical quality declines without deliberate training.
The program should preserve:
Muscle mass
Maximal strength
Power
Bone density
Aerobic capacity
Balance
Coordination
Mobility
Confidence in movement
Power deserves particular emphasis because it often declines faster than maximal strength and is essential for preventing falls, climbing stairs, catching oneself, and moving quickly when necessary.
A complete healthy-aging program should therefore include:
Progressive resistance training
Safe explosive intent or power training
Zone 2 aerobic work
Some higher-intensity aerobic exposure
Balance and unilateral movement
Carries and gait work
Mobility sufficient for daily function
Practice getting down to and up from the floor
The objective is not merely extending lifespan.
It is preserving capability across the lifespan.
The 70-year-old and the competitive athlete are not performing identical workouts, but the underlying qualities remain the same. Load, velocity, complexity, volume, and risk are adjusted to the individual.
Again:different in degree, not in kind.
The comparative model
Population
Primary Emphasis
Supporting Conditioning
Main Interference Risk
CrossFit
Broad competitive capacity
Full spectrum
Excessive mixed fatigue and inadequate specialization
Hypertrophy
Muscle growth
Low-impact aerobic and concise intervals
Reduced lifting quality and recovery
Bodybuilding
Muscular size, symmetry, leanness
Progressive low-impact cardio
Energy deficit plus excessive total volume
GPP
Broad competence
Balanced aerobic and anaerobic work
Randomness without measurable progression
Tactical
Durable performance under uncertainty
Aerobic base, loaded work, repeated efforts
Fitness fatigue degrading occupational skill
Olympic weightlifting
Skill, power, maximal strength
Minimal effective conditioning dose
Loss of speed, freshness, and technical quality
Healthy aging
Capability and independence
Aerobic base plus selected intensity
Underloading, excessive caution, and lack of power work
The deeper lesson
This third article should not merely contain seven sample programs. It should teach the reader how to reason.
The reader should finish understanding that programming is a process of adjusting several variables:
Priority
Frequency
Intensity
Volume
Modality
Sequence
Recovery
Specificity
The exercises are not the program. The allocation of stress is the program.
That is how we prevent the article from becoming a collection of templates that readers blindly copy. We can include sample weekly structures, but each one should demonstrate the principle behind the arrangement.
The barbell, a bike, the rower, a sled, the track, or a pull-up bar are not competing philosophies. They are tools. Their value depends on the problem they are being used to solve.
A bodybuilder, Olympic weightlifter, tactical professional, CrossFit athlete, and older adult all require strength, endurance, power, movement competency, and resilience. The needs vary in application, not in kind.
Good programming does not ask which quality is universally best. It asks which quality matters most right now, how much of the others must be developed or preserved, and how they can coexist without obscuring the primary objective.
Programming is not the science of writing workouts. It is the art of organizing adaptation. As always, the principles remain constant. The application is the art and that’s what real coaching is all about
The Interference Effect: Separating Physiology from Fitness Mythology
“Understanding what works is valuable. Understanding why it works changes the way you think forever.”
In the previous article, Cardio Doesn’t Kill Your Gains. Poor Programming Does, we challenged one of the most persistent myths in strength and conditioning.
The conclusion was straightforward.
Cardiovascular training does not inherently prevent muscle growth. Rather, poorly designed training, excessive volume, inadequate recovery, insufficient nutrition, and conflicting priorities, is what most often limits progress.
For the overwhelming majority of lifters, the question isn’t whether they should perform cardiovascular training. The question is how to integrate it intelligently into a well-designed program.
That practical advice is enough for most people.
But for coaches, athletes, and those who simply enjoy understanding why the body behaves the way it does, there is a much deeper story waiting beneath the surface.
That story begins inside a single muscle cell.
The Conversation Inside the Cell
Every training session asks your body a question.
Heavy squats ask:
“Can you produce more force?”
A sprint interval asks:
“Can you generate enormous amounts of energy very quickly?”
A thirty-minute Zone 2 session asks:
“Can you become more efficient?”
Your muscles answer each of these questions by activating different signaling pathways that regulate adaptation.
These pathways are often portrayed as opposing armies locked in constant battle. One builds muscle. The other builds endurance. One must win while the other loses. It’s an appealing narrative. It’s also an oversimplification because biology is rarely that binary.
Meet the Two Most Famous Molecules in Exercise Physiology
If you’ve spent any time reading about muscle growth or endurance training, you’ve almost certainly encountered two acronyms:
AMPK
and
mTOR.
They’re frequently described as rivals. While that’s directionally true, the relationship is considerably more nuanced than the internet often suggests.
AMPK functions as the cell’s energy sensor. Whenever energy availability begins to decline, as happens during prolonged or demanding exercise, AMPK becomes activated.
Its job is straightforward and that’s to restore energy balance.
It encourages the body to become more metabolically efficient, increase glucose uptake, enhance fat oxidation, and promote mitochondrial adaptations that improve endurance over time.
mTOR serves a different purpose.
Rather than conserving energy, mTOR responds to mechanical tension, amino acid availability, particularly leucine, and adequate cellular energy by promoting protein synthesis, tissue repair, and muscle growth.
One pathway asks,
“How do we survive this demand?”
The other asks,
“How do we become stronger for the next one?”
Both are essential an neither is the enemy.
Where the Myth Begins
Here’s where decades of misunderstanding started. Researchers discovered that AMPK can suppress certain components of the mTOR pathway.
That finding quickly evolved into a popular conclusion:
“Cardio turns on AMPK.
AMPK turns off mTOR.
Therefore cardio kills muscle growth.”
Simple but also wrong, or at least incomplete. Because physiology almost never operates like a light switch.
Biology Prefers Dimmers Over Switches
One of the most overlooked aspects of exercise physiology is time. AMPK responds rapidly to energetic stress. During demanding exercise, it rises quickly.
Then, once the exercise ends and energy balance begins to recover, AMPK activity declines just as rapidly, often within minutes to a few hours.
mTOR behaves differently.
Following resistance training, especially when combined with adequate protein intake, mTOR signaling can remain elevated for many hours and, in some cases, more than a day as muscle protein synthesis continues.
These aren’t two permanent states competing for dominance. They’re temporary responses to changing physiological demands. Your body constantly adjusts which pathway receives greater emphasis based on what it needs at that moment.
Location Matters
Another misconception is that these pathways somehow control the entire body equally at all times. They don’t. Many signaling responses are remarkably localized.
The muscle fibers performing repeated contractions experience different metabolic demands than surrounding tissues. The cardiovascular system responds differently than skeletal muscle. The liver behaves differently than adipose tissue.
Even within skeletal muscle, fiber type influences adaptation. The body isn’t issuing a single command. It’s conducting an orchestra. Different sections play different parts. Together they produce adaptation.
The Body Doesn’t Choose Between Building and Improving
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this entire discussion is that AMPK and mTOR are not always mutually exclusive. Under certain physiological conditions, aspects of both pathways can be active simultaneously. Cells routinely remove damaged proteins while synthesizing new ones.
Energy availability can improve while structural remodeling occurs. Recovery itself is an ongoing process of destruction and regeneration. Our physiology isn’t designed around choosing one adaptation. It’s designed around balancing competing demands with extraordinary precision.
What the Research Shows
This is where molecular biology meets coaching.
When researchers move beyond isolated signaling pathways and study actual athletes over weeks and months, the dramatic interference many people fear becomes surprisingly difficult to reproduce outside very high volumes of endurance training.
Concurrent training research consistently demonstrates that the magnitude of the interference effect depends on factors such as:
Total endurance volume
Exercise modality
Session timing
Recovery
Nutritional status
Training experience
Overall programming
In other words, the molecular biology doesn’t invalidate the conclusions from the previous article, it explains them.
Recent research confirms that the so-called “interference effect” is real, but its magnitude depends on how training is programmed. For example, a 2016 study by Jones et al. found that, while concurrent training can slightly reduce strength gains compared to strength training alone, the effect is modest and can be minimized with thoughtful sequencing and recovery (Jones et al., 2016).
Why Running Sometimes Differs from Cycling
One particularly interesting finding is that not all endurance training produces the same interference.
High-volume running often creates greater reductions in hypertrophy than cycling or rowing.
Why?
Part of the explanation likely lies in mechanical loading. Running introduces thousands of eccentric foot strikes that generate additional muscular damage and recovery demands.
Cycling and rowing produce far less eccentric stress while still developing robust cardiovascular adaptations. The heart doesn’t particularly care how you elevate its workload.
Your joints and muscles often do. For athletes prioritizing hypertrophy, choosing lower-impact conditioning modalities can preserve more recovery capacity for strength training.
The First Principle
Understanding physiology should never replace good coaching.
It should explain it. The interference effect is real. But it is conditional, contextual, and frequently exaggerated. Most athletes don’t need to fear cardiovascular training. They need to respect recovery.
They need to understand adaptation. And above all, they need to remember that physiology doesn’t reward extremes. It rewards appropriate stress followed by appropriate recovery. That’s how stronger muscles are built. That’s how better cardiovascular systems are developed.
And that’s how thoughtful programming transforms isolated workouts into long-term performance.
Closing Thoughts
Perhaps the greatest lesson from the interference effect has nothing to do with AMPK or mTOR. It is a reminder that biology rarely conforms to the tidy, binary explanations we often prefer.
Strength or endurance. Cardio or muscle. Building or recovering. These are useful categories for conversation, but they are poor descriptions of how the human body actually functions. Our physiology is not governed by absolutes. It is governed by balance, adaptation, and context.
The best coaches understand this instinctively. Science simply helps explain why.
Next time we’ll discuss what performance programs actually look like. They’re the same physical qualities, simply applied with different priorities.
As always, the principles remain the same. The art is in the application of that knowledge.
References Jones, T. W., Howatson, G., Russell, M., French, D. N., & Thomas, K. (2016). Performance and physiological differences between concurrent training and strength training. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 116(3), 665-678.
Cardio Doesn’t Kill Your Gains. Poor Programming Does.
“The first principle isn’t choosing between strength and conditioning. It’s understanding what adaptation you’re trying to create.”
Cardio Doesn’t Kill Your Gains. Poor Programming Does.
For decades, one of the most persistent myths in strength training has been deceptively simple:
“If you want to build muscle, avoid cardio.”
It sounds reasonable. After all, endurance athletes tend to be lean, while bodybuilders are muscular. Somewhere along the way, many people concluded that cardiovascular training and muscle growth must exist at opposite ends of the same spectrum.
Like most fitness myths, there’s a grain of truth buried beneath a mountain of oversimplification.
Can excessive endurance training interfere with maximal hypertrophy? Yes.
Can intelligently programmed cardiovascular training improve your health, enhance your recovery, increase your work capacity, and have little meaningful effect on muscle growth?
Also yes. The difference isn’t cardio. It’s programming
The Wrong Question
People often ask, “How much cardio can I do without losing muscle?” It’s the wrong question. The better question is: What adaptation am I trying to produce?
Every training session asks your body to solve a problem. Heavy squats ask it to produce more force. Tempo intervals ask it to become more efficient at clearing lactate.
Sprints demand explosive power. Long easy efforts improve aerobic efficiency.
These aren’t competing identities. They’re simply different physiological adaptations. Understanding that distinction changes everything.
First, Let’s Define “Cardio”
One reason this discussion becomes so confusing is because we use the word cardio as though it’s a type of exercise.
It isn’t. It’s a physiological demand.
Your cardiovascular system doesn’t know whether you’re running, rowing, cycling, carrying sandbags, or performing twenty-rep squats. It only knows that your muscles require oxygen, nutrients, and energy.
Think about workouts like: – The Standard (Grace – 30 clean and jerks at 135/95, 30 ring muscle ups, Isabel – 30 snatches at 135/95) – Heavy sled pushes – Oly complexes of 5 reps or more – 2k row for time – 5k run – Fran – 20 rep max back squat – Murph
Nobody finishes those wondering whether their cardiovascular system was challenged. Weight training can absolutely become cardiovascular training depending on how it’s programmed.
These variables determine the cardiovascular demand, not whether you’re holding a barbell or running shoes. The conversation isn’t “weights versus cardio.”
It never was.
Where the Myth Came From
The concern isn’t entirely imaginary.
Researchers have long studied what’s known as the interference effect, the observation that combining endurance and resistance training can, under certain conditions, reduce some strength and hypertrophy adaptations compared with resistance training alone.
Notice the language. Can. Under certain conditions.
Not: Always. Those conditions matter.
A competitive marathon runner performing sixty miles each week while trying to maximize leg hypertrophy faces a very different challenge than someone lifting four days a week while adding two thirty-minute conditioning sessions.
Those are not the same training problems. Yet they’re often discussed as though they are.
What Actually Interferes?
For most lifters, muscle isn’t lost because they jogged. It’s lost because recovery becomes the limiting factor.
Poor programming often looks like this: Heavy lower-body lifting followed immediately by long-distance running. High-volume conditioning layered on top of already excessive lifting volume. Poor sleep. Insufficient calories. Inadequate protein intake. Eventually something has to give. Trying to train near maximally, whether it’s loading or intensity, 4-6 days per week.
If training continually exceeds your ability to recover, progress slows—not because cardio is inherently bad, but because the total stress exceeds your adaptive capacity.
The Research Is More Encouraging Than the Internet
Fortunately, the research is considerably more nuanced than the internet. Much of the fear surrounding cardio comes from laboratory discussions about molecular signaling. You’ll often hear that endurance exercise activates one pathway while resistance training activates another, and that these pathways “fight” each other.
There is truth here. But physiology is rarely as binary as social media suggests.
These signals are temporary. They’re influenced by nutrition, training age, exercise selection and most important, recovery.
And they’re often localized to the tissues being trained rather than acting as a simple on-off switch across the entire body.
More importantly, when researchers look beyond the molecular biology and examine actual training outcomes, the picture becomes much less dramatic.
For the overwhelming majority of recreational lifters, and even many competitive athletes, well-designed conditioning has little meaningful effect on muscle growth.
Programming matters far more than the mere presence of cardiovascular exercise.
Numerous studies support the idea that cardio, when programmed intelligently, does not meaningfully hinder muscle growth. For example, a 2015 meta-analysis by Dr. Brad Schoenfeld and colleagues concluded that combining strength and cardio training results in only a negligible impact on muscle and strength gains, provided programming is sound (Schoenfeld, B.J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J.W., 2015, Sports Medicine).
Cardio That Supports Muscle Growth
If hypertrophy is your primary objective, conditioning should complement not compete with your lifting.
Generally speaking, it could look like the following:
Shorter, more intense sprint work.
Use interval-based conditioning where appropriate.
Row.
Cycle.
Throw med-balls.
Use the SkiErg.
Carry odd objects.
Push and pull sleds.
Perform tempo intervals.
Carry heavy implements.
Include sprint interval training when recovery allows.
Separate demanding conditioning from heavy lower-body strength sessions whenever practical.
Most importantly, keep the main thing, the main thing.
Conditioning exists to improve health, increase work capacity, and support recovery, not to leave you so fatigued that tomorrow’s strength session suffers.
Keep the Main Thing the Main Thing
The best programs are surprisingly disciplined. They know exactly what they’re trying to improve. Everything else exists to support that objective, not distract from it.
One of the greatest mistakes athletes make is assuming every session must improve every quality simultaneously.
It doesn’t. Training is about emphasis or specificity to the individual and their goals. Some phases prioritize maximal strength. Some emphasize hypertrophy, aerobic capacity gymnastic or Olympic Weightlifting skill. A skill Ive always referred to as barbell gymnastics because of how skill dependent they are.
The art of coaching isn’t teaching every quality simultaneously. It’s knowing which qualities deserve emphasis today, and which can simply be maintained until tomorrow.
That’s programming.
The First Principle
Cardio doesn’t kill your gains. Poor programming does. If your training reflects clear priorities, if recovery matches workload, if nutrition supports adaptation, if conditioning complements rather than competes with strength, then you can become stronger. You will then become stronger, healthier, and better conditioned.
Not because you avoided cardio, but because you finally stopped asking whether strength and conditioning are enemies.
They never were. They simply need a coach who understands how to make them work together.
The principles remain constant. The application is the art.
If you’re curious why all of this works, not merely what to do, we’ll step out of the weight room and into the physiology laboratory. There we’ll explore the molecular conversation taking place inside skeletal muscle every time you lift, sprint, row, or recover, and discover why the story is far more nuanced than the internet would have you believe.
References
Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2015). Effect of concurrent aerobic and strength training on maximal strength, power, and hypertrophy in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(5), 697–708.
Wilson, J. M., Marin, P. J., Rhea, M. R., Wilson, S. M. C., Loenneke, J. P., & Anderson, J. C. (2012). Concurrent training: A meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(8), 2293–2307.
Stop obsessing over windows. Start building systems.
If you train hard, care about body composition, and want real-world energy, you’ve probably heard people say:
“You have to eat protein within 30 minutes of lifting.” “Don’t eat carbs after 8 PM.” “Fasting boosts growth hormone, just train fasted.” “Breakfast is optional if your willpower is high enough.”
None of this is completely wrong, but none of them is 100% valid or effective for all, so don’t waste any mental space on them and focus on what’s been proven to work over decades.
Let’s cut through the BS.
The Truth About Nutrient Timing
Nutrient timing can matter, but it’s not the magic some claim, and it’s not completely useless like others claim.
It doesn’t override your daily totals. But it does influence:
How well you train.
How fast you recover.
How consistent is your energy, mood, and hunger?
Here’s the simplified hierarchy:
Daily intake = most important
Meal timing = performance lever
Meal composition = precision tool
Supplement timing = tiny bonus
Myth: If you miss the post-workout window, your workout is wasted. Fact: Muscle protein synthesis remains elevated for hours; what matters most is your overall daily intake and rhythm.
Science Sidebar: Why does timing matter? Protein synthesis is elevated for several hours after training, so spacing protein throughout the day maximizes muscle repair. Carbohydrates around workouts help refill glycogen and lower stress hormones like cortisol.
What You Need to Know
1. Protein Timing
Protein intake is about distribution, not hitting a “window.”
Aim for:
25–40g of protein per meal
Every 3–5 hours
Starting within 1–2 hours of waking
Ending within 2 hours post-training
Even distribution improves muscle protein synthesis, recovery, and satiety. Research shows that even protein distribution (every 3–5 hours) is linked to greater muscle protein synthesis and recovery (Areta et al., 2013).
This replenishes glycogen, blunts cortisol, and enhances recovery. It’s not “dirty.” It’s just useful.
3. Fat Timing
Fat slows digestion. That’s helpful during the day but not ideal around training.
Keep fat moderate pre-workout. Go higher-fat during lower-carb meals later in the day.
Fat: It’s less about timing, more about portion. Eating a high-fat meal before training can slow digestion and make some people feel sluggish. Experiment with your pre-workout meals to find what feels best.
Generally: moderate fat at main meals, lower fat pre/post-workout.
Example Timing Strategy (Strength Training Day)
When I started having a balanced meal within 90 minutes of training, my recovery and afternoon energy noticeably improved.
730/8 PM: Greek yogurt + whey or casein and a handful of nuts
Total protein: ~180-200g Balanced carbs, front-loaded around training Fats used to stabilize energy later
Action Challenge:
Pick one meal to move closer to your training time and one post-workout meal to optimize.
Your goal:
Protein: 30g
Carbs: 30–50g
Minimal fat
Eaten within 1–2 hours of finishing your workout
Coach’s Corner:
Don’t try to “hack” your metabolism with clever meal timing.
Build rhythm that supports your output.
Use timing to reduce stress, not increase it.
Suggested Reading:
“Nutrient Timing: The Future of Sports Nutrition by Ivy & Portman A classic foundation on how timing influences performance and recovery. A bit dated, but still useful.
Key Takeaway:
Nutrient timing isn’t magic; it’s just another way to support what matters most: consistency and recovery.
Timing isn’t a rulebook. It’s a framework. Daily totals matter most, but if you train hard, timing helps you show up stronger, recover faster, and stay more consistent.
Next Week: The Carbohydrate Question
Once your daily intake is dialed in and you start thinking about timing, the next question always comes up:
“Do carbs still matter? Or should I be avoiding them?”
That’s where we’re headed next. In Week 4, we’ll break down the truth about carbs. Not hype. Not fear. Just what they actually do, and how to use them to train, recover, and function better in daily life.
There’s a reason militaries train drills, martial artists bow before stepping on the mat, and serious lifters follow the same barbell warm-ups and setups every rep: ritual anchors action.
Every time I approach the snatch or clean and jerk, my warm-up is identical. But more importantly, before each lift, my mantra is the same: strong, smooth, execute. Strong off the floor. Smooth through the transition past the knees. Execute the finish as fully and explosively as possible. That’s not superstition, it’s neurological priming.
And it’s not because rituals are magical but because they’re neurological.
Your brain craves predictability. When you repeat a behavior in the same context, you create neural pathways that make the action automatic. Decision fatigue drops. Willpower becomes irrelevant. The ritual does the thinking for you.
Routines are what you do. Rituals are what you become. And what you become is what earns you success in everything you do.
As we move into the tail end of the year, that time when holidays, social demands, stressors, and schedules swirl into chaos, it’s tempting to believe our nutrition, training, or recovery practices must go on pause.
That belief isn’t just unnecessary, it’s counterproductive.
What keeps progress intact isn’t perfection; it’s persistent, ritualized behaviors that stabilize and center the day, no matter what’s going on around you.
Build the Day on Behavioral Anchors, Not Outcomes
When people ask me how to stay consistent in “real life,” they usually mean: how do I not fall off the wagon when life gets chaotic?
The answer is simple: build it from the inside out.
Here are four anchors that form the bedrock of consistency:
Movement Before Screens: It doesn’t have to be a full workout. But 5–10 minutes of movement (walk, stretch, bodyweight flow) before checking the phone, laptop, or email changes the tone of your entire day. Why? Because you’ve claimed the first decision. You’ve told your nervous system: I control my attention, not my inbox. That psychological win compounds throughout the day.
Hydration Habit: A full glass of water (ideally with a pinch of sea salt and lemon if you don’t get enough salt in your diet) within 10 minutes of waking kickstarts your digestion, cognitive function, and blood pressure regulation, before that first dose of coffee.
Protein-Priority Breakfast: Especially when life gets hectic, humans skip meals or over-rely on convenience. Anchoring your day with 30–40g of protein early (eggs/egg whites, Greek yogurt, turkey sausage, et cetera) improves neurotransmitter production and blood sugar regulation for hours. This isn’t bro-science, it’s biochemistry. Protein provides the amino acids needed for dopamine and serotonin synthesis. Skip breakfast, and you’re running on cortisol and caffeine until lunch. That’s not energy. That’s borrowed time.
The 3 pm Prep Pulse: Set an alarm. Use it as a check-in: have I eaten enough? Do I need to prep dinner? Can I cut back on caffeine now to improve my sleep later? It’s not a full pause, just a quiet calibration. Most people crash in the afternoon because they’re reacting—grabbing sugar, slamming coffee, pushing through. The 3 pm pulse is proactive. It’s a moment to course-correct before the evening gets away from you.
None of these is radical. That’s the point.
The fitness industry profits from extremes. Thirty-day challenges. Transformation programs. Biohacking protocols that require a PhD and a trust fund. More complexity means more products to sell, more content to consume, more reasons to feel like you’re not doing enough.
But rituals win because they’re repeatable. And what’s repeatable is sustainable. And what’s sustainable is what actually changes your life.
Field Notes: Coaching in the Chaos
A few years ago, a CrossFit athlete of mine was juggling a full-time job, coaching mornings, and training for her first comp. Time was tight. Energy was tighter. She came to me overwhelmed, trying to follow a six-day training split, meal prep on Sundays, and track macros down to the gram.
“I’m doing everything right, but I feel like I’m failing,” she said.
The problem wasn’t effort. It was sustainability. So we simplified everything down to three non-negotiables:
Never skip breakfast (30g protein minimum)
Get one quality training session per day as prescribed (not six mediocre ones)
Set the coffee pot timer at night as a small win (and a moment of morning Zen)
That’s it. No macro tracking. No six-day splits. Just three rituals she could execute even on her worst days.
It wasn’t flashy. It was ritualized. She podiumed in her first comp three months later. Not because the rituals were magic, but because they were repeatable.
Full transparency: we also got her front squat, deadlift, and strength endurance up during that time. But here’s the thing, the PRs didn’t come from complicated programming. They came from consistent execution. Higher protein intake and quality training sessions made both the podium and the PRs possible. The rituals created the conditions for everything else to work.
Chaos Is the Test, Not the Excuse
Everyone can follow a plan when life’s calm. But performance, in sport, work, or life, is forged when conditions are not ideal.
Chaos doesn’t care about your goals. It doesn’t wait for January or “when things settle down.” Chaos is constant. Which means your rituals must be too.
The path forward isn’t motivation. It’s not willpower. It’s intentional design backed by disciplined repetition.
As the holiday season ramps up, resist the all-or-nothing mindset. Build your day on anchors, not apps. Choose a few small rituals, do them well, and repeat them until they’re part of who you are, not something you have to remember to do.
Then repeat them until you can’t get them wrong.
Consistency doesn’t come from a spreadsheet or a thirty-day challenge. It comes from rituals that show up for you when everything else is falling apart.
The reward isn’t external. It’s internal. And that’s something worth protecting.
If you show up on the mats, under the barbell, or work hard to refine your gymnastic skills with any kind of serious intent, you’re not just training. You’re preparing and refining, often asking your body to do more than the day before. In our world, what you eat becomes the difference between a “good session” and a “great session,” and between strategic recovery and systemic breakdown. It’s the small details that separate showing up from showing out!
Let’s skip the noise and get tactical: how do semi-competitive athletes or serious recreational competitors fuel performance when life’s messy—work, travel, kids, and tired mornings? Let’s make it real.
The Big Picture
Research shows nutrient timing matters, especially around workouts. The ISSN says, “Purposeful ingestion of nutrients at various times throughout the day” (source) supports strength, power, body composition, and performance.
But for your average serious athlete? The “anabolic window” isn’t a specific, narrow window where you must cram in a meal. That “window” is basically as wide as a garage door. You don’t need perfect timing; it’s about being prepared at the right time.
Three Fuel Strategies That Work
1. Pre-training Anchor Meal Eat something 60-90 minutes before your session: a moderate amount of carbs, lean protein, and a lighter amount of fat. Example: oatmeal with banana + a scoop of whey or Greek yogurt. Why? You’re topping off glycogen and priming your engine. If you train early and can’t eat, choose a liquid option: an easy-to-digest protein and carb-balanced smoothie.
2. In Training Mini Feeding (When It’s Longer or More Intense) If your session lasts more than 60 minutes or you’re doing back-to-back days, plan a quick carb hit mid-session (30–60g) and hydrate thoroughly. Why? To prevent an energy crash during your training and help protect your neurologic control.
3. Post Training Recovery Meal Hit carbs + protein within 1–2 hours after intense work. Aim for a carb-to-protein ratio of roughly 3:1 to 4:1. Why? To replenish muscle glycogen, repair muscle, and prepare for your next session. Example: 4-6oz chicken breast, 1/2 sweet potato, 1 cup of roasted veggies drizzled with garlic-infused olive oil + 1 banana + 1 tbsp peanut butter.
How to adjust for workload (without going neurotic)
• Light day/skill day: Reduce carbs by ~20–30% and keep protein moderate. • Heavy day/max effort session: Increase carbs by 10–20%, keep protein steady. • Rest day: Keep protein consistent, reduce carbs/fats based on hunger, not fear.
You don’t need daily macro spreadsheets. Just know your baseline, use a fuel strategy, and build awareness. This gets easier each week and with every rep.
Notes from the Field
I’ve watched CrossFit athletes and tactical team members burn themselves out because they consistently skipped their pre-session carbs or failed to track and meet their protein intake for 2 or 3 consecutive days. When your training really matters, you have to treat eating like it’s a part-time job. I’ve run a meal prep business, coached fighters, been a fighter, and lived and trained overseas. I know that life because I’ve lived and breathed it for years. Fueling with purpose is fundamental.
Super Simple Action Steps You Can Take This Week
Pick one heavy training day and one rest/light day. Write down your usual food. For the heavy day, increase pre- and post-training carbs. On a rest day, maintain a steady protein intake and reduce carbohydrates by approximately 20%. Have a pre-workout anchor meal 60 minutes before a session. Note your energy, focus, and performance.
Log your post-training recovery meal within 2 hours after a session—get your carb and protein hit. Track how you feel the next day.
The key takeaways: Fuel consistently, match carbs to your workload, prioritize recovery, and make eating part of your training routine.
Train. Eat. Recover. Repeat.
If you’re training to lead from the front, fuel like someone already ahead of the pack.
When you’ve trained on the mats, coached clients through cleans, kettlebell swings, and meal prep execution, and watched everyday athletes chase their performance goals, you start to see the myths vs reality.
The claims that sound sexy.
Some strategies seem fresh and innovative.
And there are promises that seem too good to be true and usually are.
Here are five of the most persistent nutrition myths that still persist in fitness culture to this day. These myths can hold back your progress, make your habits harder, and limit your performance.
Let’s put these myths to rest.
Myth 1: Carbs Make You Fat, So Avoid Them The belief that carbohydrates are always “bad” is one of the oldest myths in fitness. Over time, people started to think of “carbs” as just donuts and soda, forgetting that fruits, vegetables, rice, and oats are also carbohydrates.
Carbohydrates are your body’s preferred fuel source for high-intensity movement. In sprinting, lifting, grappling, and EMOMs. When you cut carbs too aggressively, especially around training, you’re cutting the fuel that keeps the engine running and ready for its highest performance.
Of course, someone who doesn’t move much and eats 400 grams of sugary carbs every day will gain fat. But if you’re an athlete training 4 to 6 times a week and still avoiding fruit, you’re likely to struggle with recovery, mental clarity, and performance.
Carbs are not the problem. The real issues are poor timing, portion sizes, and choosing the wrong sources. It’s important to know the difference.
Myth 2: More Protein Equals More Muscle It’s easy to think of protein as a magic solution for building muscle. But the idea that you can just drink more shakes and automatically grow isn’t true. Your body can only use a certain amount of protein at a time, and anything extra just adds calories.
If your training lacks volume, intensity, or progression, no amount of protein will magically build muscle. If your sleep is poor, your recovery window is compromised. And if your stress is off the charts, you’ll break down more than you build.
Think of protein as a critical piece of the puzzle, but not the only one. Focus on consistent daily intake (spread across meals), quality sources (whole food > processed powders), and real recovery habits. You don’t get stronger just by eating. You get stronger by absorbing nutrients after solid training and real rest.
Myth 3: Fat Slows You Down, Avoid It Fat was blamed during the low-fat trends of the 1980s and 1990s, and some people still avoid it. Even now, many choose “fat-free” salad dressing and worry that eating an avocado will hurt their progress.
The truth is, healthy fats are needed for hormone production, joint health, cell repair, and brain function. Athletes who avoid fat for too long often have trouble sleeping, joint pain, low libido, or hormone problems.
You don’t have to add butter to your coffee or eat only bacon to benefit from fat. But if you’re training hard and still eating like it’s the 1990s, you’re missing out on better performance.
Balance your macronutrients to build a strong foundation.
Myth 4: You Shouldn’t Eat After 7 PM This one sticks around like gym chalk on a black shirt. The belief is: eating late = fat gain. But what the science actually says is this: calorie balance, nutrient timing, and daily movement matter far more than the clock.
If you train in the evening, work a night shift, or just eat dinner late, you’re not hurting your progress. It’s your routine. The real problem is eating junk food late at night, snacking without thinking, stress-eating, or skipping meals earlier.
For athletes, skipping a meal after training just because it’s late can lead to poor recovery and insufficient sleep. Your body doesn’t track time; it just needs the right fuel.
Myth 5: Supplements Replace Meals Supplements have become a billion-dollar industry promising shortcuts. But the truth? They’re called supplements for a reason. They supplement a well-rounded diet. They don’t replace one.
If your diet isn’t steady, you don’t drink enough water, and your sleep is poor, no supplement will fix your performance.
Whey protein is fine when you’re on the go. Electrolytes help when training volume is high. But if you’re leaning on powders, bars, or mystery potions more than you’re eating real food? You’re missing the point.
Eating real food leads to real results. Supplements are optional, but hard work, recovery, and whole foods are essential.
Bonus Myth That Needs to Be Busted Once and For All
You Need BCAAs to Build Muscle and Recover Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) have been marketed like magic, drink this neon liquid, build more muscle, recover faster, dominate your workouts. But if you’re eating enough complete protein daily (think eggs, meat, fish, dairy, or quality whey), you’re already getting all the BCAAs your body needs.
The truth is, BCAAs are only three out of nine essential amino acids, and they don’t work alone. Building and repairing muscle needs all of them. Taking BCAAs instead of full protein is like bringing only a few bricks to a construction site and expecting to build a whole building.
This myth sticks around because supplement companies make a lot of money from BCAAs. They’re cheap to produce, easy to flavor, and simple to market to people who want quick fixes or think more is always better. Unless you train for hours without eating or have a very low protein diet, BCAAs aren’t necessary.
The bottom line: If you get enough protein each day, you don’t need BCAAs. Save your money and enjoy a good meal instead.
Why This Actually Matters I’ve been in boardrooms, meal prep kitchens, and war rooms. I’ve been a fighter and sat across from fighters who measure life in rounds, and clients who measure progress in PRs.
The pattern is always the same: Myths confuse, limit, and delay growth. But once you break your nutrition down into simple truths, reality & function over fad, you become harder to fool, harder to distract, harder to derail.
Field Notes: Your Mission This Week • Pick one myth above you’re still believing. Write it down. Then spend 10 minutes challenging it with real information. • Swap one habit: Still avoiding carbs around workouts? Try a simple “safe” carb on a heavy day. Watch how recovery and hunger change. • Track one metric: Not the scale. Maybe energy, sleep, or workout quality. Let that be your barometer, not guilt. • Talk it out: Share one busted myth with someone—client, teammate, or partner. Watch the shift when you trade confusion for clarity.
Nutrition is more than just eating. It’s about being ready for training, workouts, and daily life with the right fuel to help you succeed, not hold you back.
Five weeks ago, I pulled a 41.3-second 250 meter row. Today, I hit 40.2. Just over a second faster.
Most wouldn’t notice the difference, but if you’ve ever chased improvement in anything, lifting, rowing, writing, or career-related, you know what that second really means.
It’s not one test. It’s everything between the test and the retest.
Early mornings. Late nights. Lifting after focusing on a screen all day, securing cloud configs, writing incident reports, and drafting security policies. Endless meetings, collaborating with stakeholders, or staying disciplined enough to meal prep when convenience is whispering your name.
The first test showed where I was. The weeks that followed demonstrated what I was willing to do to get a little bit better every day.
That one second didn’t come from luck. It came from honesty. From taking stock of where my form slipped when fatigue hit, where breathing got shallow, where my leg drive gave too early, and where comfort started whispering, “Hey man, you’ve done enough.”
It came from the same place real growth always hides: the re-tests, not the first runs. Every domain follows the same law: test, learn, refine, retest. That’s how systems harden. That’s how people do, too.
The next time you test something, whether it’s a lift, a sprint, IAM permissions, or a personal limit, remember this: progress rarely looks dramatic as it happens. It might seem minor, but the one second I cut over five weeks shows the value of steady effort. Others might have said, “Hey man, that 41.3 is pretty damn good for a man your age.” For me, that will never be enough.
What “the science” says:
Power output was 673 Watts
VO2 Max is 68.5 ml/kg/min
Faster than 95% of male rowers your age
89% faster than all male rowers
No matter what, 41.3 → 40.2 is proof that attention to detail and small improvements over time are earned, never issued, and that’s the real story.
Matt Shannon, Security Pro 