CrossFit L1 Course Review + My Thoughts
I recently took the weekend long CrossFit Level 1 certification course and in this blog I will discuss why I made the decision to take this course, the outline and schedule of what was covered in this course, my thoughts on the content of this course including how I think a S&C coach can use this course and if I would recommend this course to a S&C coach.
Why I Decided to Take this Course
3 reasons:
Honestly, this first one is pretty petty. I like being a coach that goes against the grain and challenges the status quo of the S&C industry, and CF just so happens to be great at doing that with the S&C industry traditionalists. I wanted to get CF-L1 certified because I know there are S&C coaches who will judge me for it and automatically assume things about me as a coach simply because I have a CF cert. How do I know this? Because within days of getting this cert it already happened on social media. Plus, as a young S&C coach I did it myself, which brings me to reason #2.
Getting this cert represents growth and expansion of thought for me as a coach. As I mentioned above I was one of those judgemental coaches. When I first started coaching 10 years ago I thought CF was incredibly dumb, and anyone associated with it at all was thereby dumb by default. Fun story: almost 10 years ago exactly I got into a Twitter argument with the main CF Twitter account lol. Then, in 2015, I got a job offer from a gym that trained professional athletes, but also happened to be a CF gym. It was a no brainer decision for me to accept the job but honestly my only skepticism was surrounding the CF aspect and wondering if I would lose my credibility in the industry that I was working hard to establish. Turns out that experience completely opened my eyes to different ways to train athletes that really made me who I am today.
The Army paid for the entire $1150 course fee through its Credentialing Assistance program. It also paid for my CSCS and TSAC-F certs, which is so awesome. I wouldn’t have done the CF-L1 course if the Army didn’t pay for it.
Course Outline
Day 1
Day 1 started with a lecture titled What is CrossFit. This lecture covered CF’s origins, defined ‘functional’ movements, explanation of GPP, and defined ‘high-intensity’ using basic physics. If you’re familiar with CF in any capacity you would probably be like ok yeah I kind of already knew all of that just based off of seeing people do CF. The one thing I liked about this lecture was the emphasis on their 5 points of performance for functional movements. They are:
Midline stability
Posterior chain engagement
Core to extremity
Active shoulder
Full, pain-free, range of motion
I think all 5 of these are awesome and a great reference point to come back to when coaching functional movements. CF recognizes 3 movement categories (squat, press, deadlift) with 3 functional movement progressions in each, for a total of 9 functional movements that are covered in this course.
After the initial lecture we went right into the squat lecture. The lecture was an in depth breakdown of all things squat performance covering the 3 squat variations mentioned above, with the emphasis on common movement faults and what to look for as a coach to spot these faults. Then we broke out into groups and performed the 3 squat movements ourselves and took turns watching and coaching each other. I think the instructors did a good job of really coaching us with intensity even though we were just using PVC pipes. I’ve been doing this stuff for so long, and (not trying to brag but) my technique is really good. I do this for a living and have been which I think can lend itself to me getting lazy with the small details of these movements. I appreciated how the course instructors were coaching me up, and honestly, I was getting coached with some really picky cues. Which is good.
In the afternoon we did the exact same thing but with the press category. First, classroom style lecture covering the 3 movements, and then group work to practice the movements ourselves. We also had classroom lectures where we talked about defining fitness, work capacity, and talked about the relationship between technique and intensity. At the end of the first day we did a workout to “practice” the threshold style training that we talked about in the lecture. The workout was 3 rounds for time: 15 thrusters and 12 burpees. It took me 6 minutes and it sucked.
Day 2
Day 2 started right away with the lectures on the deadlift category. After we covered those 3 we did a different style workout where we partnered up and got practice coaching an individual through a workout. The workout was an 8 minute AMRAP: 20 MB cleans and 20 sit ups. The focus was on the coaching aspect, not on the training aspect, as the instructors came around and asked us what we we’re cueing our partner on, what was getting results, and what wasn’t. Then we finished with a nutrition lecture before lunch.
In the afternoon we spent time doing kind of hybrid lectures of classroom and hands on where we covered GHD progressions, ring muscle up progressions, and the snatch. We finished the educational part of the course with a lecture on program design which went in depth on the method to the madness with AMRAPs and For Time workouts. Then we took the exam and that was it!
My Thoughts
Honestly, I was pleasantly surprised with the level of exercise physiology that was included in the lectures. It was interesting for me, someone who had been involved with CF in some capacity since 2015, to see some of the definitions CF has regarding things like fitness and work capacity and how those drive the ideas behind CF methodology. From the outside looking in it can definitely look like a lot of CF workouts or training is just throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and hoping it sticks, and then without looking throwing more shit at the wall, and then just for fun getting into a handstand and throwing shit at the wall while upside down. But I’ve been fortunate enough to be around some really high-level CF coaches so I’ve seen CF programming done extremely well and creatively. I really think the best strength and conditioning program I’ve ever seen was for an individual CF sectionals athlete.
With that being said it was a little anticlimactic when we did all of this talking about exercise physiology and in depth stuff and then our workout was just thrusters and burpees. It left me feeling like wait that’s it, in a negative sense, but idk maybe it is that simple and we just like to over complicate things to make us feel smarter.
One thing I liked was the discussion around work capacity. I think CF has done big things in this regard and has provided a framework for improving work capacity better than anyone, really. An overarching theme in many of the lectures was how CF is used to develop GPP. They were clear that they’re not trying to develop elite levels in any one fitness domain, but solid capabilities across all domains.
I really liked the emphasis on teaching movements and developing a coaching eye for faulty patterns, plus cues and strategies to correct those faults. Like I said before the instructors were really picky with me in correcting my movements which I appreciated.
Is there anything I didn’t like? Yes, there was one thing. During the discussion on intensity vs technique the message was trying to bridge the gap between the two, and while acknowledging that there’s a fine line between the two, sometimes crossed over into an acceptance for movement faults that I was uncomfortable with. I’ll admit, nothing that was said was anything that immediately made me react in disagreement. It was more like the uncomfortability surrounding the topic that kind of filled the gym that I think was interesting and made me hesitate.
I’ll try to explain in more detail. It was like on one hand the instructors were saying bad movement patterns are unacceptable like before when they were coaching the crap out of our air squats, but they were also saying that perfect form is impossible and if an athlete has perfect form then they’re not going hard enough. I totally get the point they were trying to make and I actually agree with the concept in some ways. I think that we often over treat our athletes as fragile pieces of glass, ignoring the reality that our athletes are more resilient than we sometimes think. But the conversation still had a weird aura to it.
How can a S&C coach use this cert?
I think this cert would be beneficial for a S&C coach to expand their idea of GPP and how it can be applied to all athletes. As a coach who works in tactical S&C I think our sub-section of the industry understands that tactical is GPP, but still has coaches who proudly dismiss anything resembling CF. Just a few weeks ago a popular tactical S&C coach on instagram made it a point to say that he has never done Murph and absolutely will never do Murph on Memorial Day because it’s a CF workout and he will never, under any circumstances, ever, do anything that is CF. I added some words in there but that was essentially the message being pushed.
Whatever, man.
I think it’s important to not forget the audience of this cert. This is not the CSCS. It wouldn’t ever replace the CSCS, and that’s a good thing. The audience is totally different. There were maybe 40 people attending the course I took and if I had to guess I would say maybe 3-4 have actual S&C coaching experience. 90% of the group was just people interested in CF, or hoping to help out and coach at their CF gym someday. If these people do end up coaching CF then who are they going to coach? Other regular people trying to get fit. Comparing them to us as S&C coaches with degrees and experience in our settings is unproductive. I say all that because I’ve already had a couple coaches messaging me about the problems with the CF L-1 and I think the messages are looking through too narrow of a lens. There is value in everything if you look hard enough and set aside your pre-concieved biases. And honestly, there really is a ton of value that traditional S&C coaches can use from CF, as I’ve outlined above.
Would I recommend this cert for S&C Coaches?
Yes, because it will challenge a lot of your traditional thought processes that you’ve grown up with in the S&C industry. It will challenge your biases, it will challenge the stuff you learned from people you really look up to, it will challenge you to think about how general training can improve specific aspects of your athlete’s program. It even challenged me to ask the question how much “bad technique” is acceptable? Where’s the threshold of too risky vs not risky? The one thing that I didn’t really agree with during this course still got me thinking and questioning my thoughts. I think if you’re able to get to a place where you’re doing that, you will grow as a coach no matter what.
