Analysis of Pacing Strategies in AMRAP, EMOM, and FOR TIME Training Models during “Cross” Modalities

Abstract

Empirically, it is widely discussed in “Cross” modalities that the pacing strategy developed by an athlete or trainee has a significant impact on the endurance performance in a WOD in the AMRAP, EMOM, or FOR TIME model. We can observe at least six pacing strategies adopted during the cyclical modalities in the endurance performance in the scientific literature. However, besides these modalities, exercises of acyclical modalities of weightlifting and gymnastics are performed in the “Cross” modalities. These exercises may not allow the same pacing strategies adopted during cyclic modalities’ movements due to their motor characteristics and different intensity and level of effort imposed to perform the motor gesture. In addition to the intensity and level of effort that are generally unknown to the coach and athlete of the “Cross” modalities, another factor that can influence the adoption of a pacing strategy during a WOD in the AMRAP, EMOM, or FOR TIME model is the task endpoint knowledge, which varies according to the training model used. Thus, our objective was to evaluate situations in which these factors can influence the pacing strategies adopted in a self-regulated task with cyclic and acyclic modalities movements during an endurance workout in the AMRAP, EMOM, and FOR TIME model. Given the scarcity of studies in the scientific literature and the increasing discussion of this topic within the “Cross” modalities, this manuscript can help scientists and coaches better orient their research problems or training programs and analyze and interpret new findings more accurately.

Muscular performance analysis in “cross” modalities: comparison between “AMRAP,” “EMOM” and “RFT” configurations

“…The results present in this research showed AMRAP as the modality with the lowest MPV values. This is due to the fact that it is the method with the longest duration, so the velocity is always lower as the subjects self-regulate, applying less force according to the absolute load (which is possible in a greater extent in experienced subjects with higher levels of strength), to achieve the best performance and maintain the technique of the movement ( De-Oliveira et al, 2021 ). However, no differences were observed between RFT and EMOM.…”

“…The formulation of these WODs generally adheres to one of two key principles: either they are established based on predetermined time durations, or they are defined by specific tasks to be accomplished. In the latter scenario, the task-driven criteria influence not only the nature of the exercises but also the time required for their successful completion ( De-Oliveira et al, 2021 ). In this sense, various training methodologies have been devised, comprising the AMRAP (“As Many Repetitions/Rounds As Possible”) approach, where the objective is to complete the maximum number of specified repetitions or rounds within a prescribed time limit over periods of 10–20 min.…”

“…Another modality is RFT (“Rounds For Time”), where the goal is to accomplish the designated number of rounds in the briefest amount of time possible. Lastly, the EMOM (“Every Minute on the Minute”) method involves performing the specified repetitions within a 1-min interval, with work and rest periods occurring within each minute ( Smith et al, 2013 ; Drum et al, 2017 ; Maté-Muñoz et al, 2018 ; Silva-Grigoletto et al, 2020 ; De-Oliveira et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Despite the difficulty in defining and controlling the training stimulus, given the variable characteristics of the programs ( Mangine and Seay, 2022 ), we will focus on the strength exercises that are usually part of these programs. In this regard, the vast majority of the studies analyse the effects on similar absolute loads or, failing that, relative loads established with respect to the value of 1RM ( Maté-Muñoz et al, 2018 ; Silva-Grigoletto et al, 2020 ; De-Oliveira et al, 2021 ; De-Oliveira et al, 2022 ), which can present serious limitations ( Sanchez-Medina and González-Badillo, 2011 ; Elvar-Heredia et al, 2021 ; Maté-Muñoz et al, 2022 ). Thus, propulsive velocity has been identified as the most precise variable for evaluating the intensity of strength exercises ( Sanchez-Medina et al, 2010 ; Sanchez-Medina and González-Badillo, 2011 ).…”

“…In this sense, MPV loss across the repetitions is considered a good muscular fatigue indicator in isoinertial exercises ( Sanchez-Medina and González-Badillo, 2011 ). A further issue concerning this variable and their regulation is that individuals engaging in these practices may employ specific strategies to autonomously regulate their performance levels and recuperation across diverse configurations to manage fatigue levels ( Gómez-Landero and Frías-Menacho, 2020 ; De-Oliveira et al, 2021 ). This fact presents significant heterogeneity and challenges in the realm of regulating the intensity variables and intra-session recovery ( De-Oliveira et al, 2021 ; Mangine et al, 2021 ).…”