To date, research has examined the physiological determinants of performance in standardized CrossFit® (CF) workouts but not without the influence of CF familiarity. Therefore, the purpose of this present study was to examine the predictive value of aerobic fitness, body composition, and total body strength on performance of two standardized CF workouts in CF-naïve participants. Twenty-two recreationally trained individuals (males = 13, females = 9) underwent assessments of peak oxygen consumption (VO2 peak), ventilatory thresholds, body composition, and one repetition maximum tests for the back squat, deadlift, and overhead press in which the sum equaled the CF Total. Participants also performed two CF workouts: a scaled version of the CF Open workout 19.1 and a modified version of the CF Benchmark workout Fran to determine scores based on total repetitions completed and time-to-completion, respectively. Simple Pearson’s r correlations were used to determine the relationships between CF performance variables (19.1 and modified Fran) and the independent variables. A forward stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was performed and significant variables that survived the regression analysis were used to create a predictive model of CF performance. Absolute VO2 peak was a significant predictor of 19.1 performance, explaining 39% of its variance (adjusted R2 = 0.39, p = 0.002). For modified Fran, CF Total was a significant predictor and explained 33% of the variance in performance (adjusted R2 = 0.33, p = 0.005). These results suggest, without any influence of CF familiarity or experience, that performance in these two CF workouts could be predicted by distinct laboratory-based measurements of fitness.

Background: Recent research has compared explosive deadlift to kettlebell training observing their effects on strength. The kettlebell swing is a popular practical exercise as it shares share a hip hinge movement with the explosive deadlift, but the two have not been compared. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of kettlebell swing vs. explosive deadlift training on strength and power. Methods: Thirty-one recreationally resistance-trained men (age = 23.1 ± 2.3 years, height = 175.5 ± 6.6 cm, mass = 83.9 ± 13.8 kg, 1RM deadlift = 159.9 ± 31.7 kg) were randomly assigned to one of two groups [kettlebell swing group (KBG) n = 15, or explosive deadlift group (EDLG) n = 16]. Vertical jump height, isometric mid-thigh pull (MTP), and 1RM deadlift were measured pre and post training. Both groups trained twice per week for 4 weeks. Volume and load were increased after the first 2 weeks of training. Results: A 2 (time) x 2 (group) mixed factor ANOVA revealed a significant (P<0.05) increase in deadlift 1RM (pre: 159.9 ± 31.7 kg, post: 168.9 ± 31.8 kg) and vertical jump height (pre: 56.6 ± 9.9 cm, post: 57.9 ± 9.7 cm) for both groups, but were not significantly different between groups. There were no significant changes in MTP. Conclusions: Strength and conditioning professionals may use both kettlebell swings and explosive deadlifts to increase deadlift strength and vertical jump power.

Lima, CD, Brown, LE, Wong, MA, Leyva, WD, Pinto, RS, Cadore, EL, and Ruas, CV. Acute effects of static vs. ballistic stretching on strength and muscular fatigue between ballet dancers and resistance-trained women. J Strength Cond Res 30(11): 3220-3227, 2016-Stretching is used to increase joint range of motion, but the acute effects can decrease muscle strength. However, this may depend on the population or mode of stretching. The purpose of this study was to compare the acute effects of static vs. ballistic stretching on strength and muscular fatigue between ballet dancers and resistance-trained women. Fifteen resistance-trained women (age 23.8 ± 1.80 years, mass 67.47 ± 7.77 kg, height 168.30 ± 5.53 cm) and 12 ballet dancers (age 22.8 ± 3.04 years, mass 58.67 ± 5.65 kg, height 168.00 ± 7.69 cm) performed 5 days of testing. The first day was control (no stretching), whereas the other 4 days were static or ballistic stretching in a counterbalanced order. Range of motion, strength, and fatigue tests were also performed. Both groups demonstrated a significant decrease in hamstrings strength after static (102.71 ± 2.67 N·m) and ballistic stretching (99.49 ± 2.61 N·m) compared with control (113.059 ± 3.25 N·m), with no changes in quadriceps strength. For fatigue, only ballet dancers demonstrated a decrease from control (71.79 ± 4.88%) to ballistic (65.65 ± 8.19%), but no difference with static (65.01 ± 12.29%). These findings suggest that stretching decreases hamstrings strength similarly in ballet dancers and resistance-trained women, with no differences between modes of stretching. However, ballistic stretching only decreased muscular fatigue in ballet dancers, but not in resistance-trained women. Therefore, no stretching should be performed before strength performance. However, ballistic stretching may decrease acute muscular fatigue in ballet dancers.

Munger, CN, Archer, DC, Leyva, WD, Wong, MA, Coburn, JW, Costa, PB, and Brown, LE. Acute effects of eccentric overload on concentric front squat performance. J Strength Cond Res 31(5): 1192-1197, 2017-Eccentric overload is used to enhance performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the acute effects of eccentric overload on concentric front squat performance. Twenty resistance-trained men (age = 23.80 ± 1.82 years, height = 176.95 ± 5.21 cm, mass = 83.49 ± 10.43 kg, 1 repetition maximum [1RM] front squat = 131.02 ± 21.32 kg) volunteered. A dynamic warm-up and warm-up sets of front squat were performed. Eccentric hooks were added to the barbell. They descended for 3 seconds, until eccentric hooks released, and performed the concentric phase as fast as possible. There were 3 randomly ordered conditions with the concentric phase always at 90% 1RM and the eccentric phase at 105, 110, and 120% of 1RM. Two repetitions were performed for each condition. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine differences. For peak velocity, there were main effects for time and condition (p < 0.05), where post (1.01 ± 0.10 m·s) was greater than pre (0.96 ± 0.11 m·s) and 120% (1.03 ± 1.11 m·s) was greater than 105% (0.99 ± 0.13 m·s). For peak power, there was a main effect for condition where 120% (2,225.00 ± 432.37 W) was greater than 105% (2,021.84 ± 563.53 W). For peak ground reaction force, there were main effects for time and condition, where post was greater than pre and 120% was greater than 105%. For the rate of force development, there was no interaction or main effects. Eccentric overload enhanced concentric velocity and power; therefore, it can be used by strength coaches and athletes during the power phase of a training program. It can also be used to prescribe supramaximal loads and could be a tool to supplement the clean exercise because the front squat is a precursor.

No abstract