Physiological differences between advanced CrossFit athletes, recreational CrossFit participants, and physically-active adults

We examined physiological predictors of performance on the CrossFit Murph challenge (1-mile run, 100 pullups, 200 pushups, 300 air squats, 1-mile run). Male CrossFit athletes (n = 11, 27 ± 3 years) performed a battery of physical assessments including: (1) body composition, (2) upper and lower body strength, (3) upper body endurance, (4) anaerobic power, and (5) maximal oxygen consumption. No less than 72 h later, participants completed the Murph challenge, heart rate was monitored throughout, and blood lactate was obtained pre-post. Correlations between physiological parameters and total Murph time, and Murph subcomponents, were assessed using Pearson’s correlations. Murph completion time was 43.43 ± 4.63 min, and maximum and average heart rate values were 185.63 ± 7.64 bpm and 168.81 ± 6.41 bpm, respectively, and post-Murph blood lactate was 10.01 ± 3.04 mmol/L. Body fat percentage was the only physiological parameter significantly related to total Murph time (r = 0.718; p = 0.013). Total lift time (25.49 ± 3.65 min) was more strongly related (r = 0.88) to Murph time than total run time (17.60 ± 1.97 min; r = 0.65). Greater relative anaerobic power (r = −0.634) and less anaerobic fatigue (r = 0.649) were related to total run time (p < 0.05). Individuals wanting to enhance overall Murph performance are advised to focus on minimizing body fat percentage and improving lift performance. Meanwhile, performance on the run subcomponent may be optimized through improvements in anaerobic power.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physiological Predictors of Performance on the CrossFit “Murph” Challenge

Carreker

Grosicki

2020

“…It may be particularly insightful to examine measures of critical power and anaerobic work capacity, such as during a 3 min all-out test, and their relationship to performance in 19.1 or 19.1-like WODs and whether they further impact the predictive model or are superior predictors than VO 2 max/peak. Recently, Mangine et al [23] provided some initial insight as critical power determined by a 3 min all-out-test was significantly greater in advanced CF athletes vs. recreational CF participants or physically active subjects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between CrossFit® Performance and Laboratory-Based Measurements of Fitness

Zeitz

Cook

Dexheimer

et al. 2020

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.

“…Sixteen experienced (>2 years) male (n = 8) and female (n = 8) CrossFit ® practitioners (30.7 ± 6.9 years, 171 ± 12 cm, 78.0 ± 16.2 kg), who had volunteered to participate in a larger investigation into the physiological differences among CrossFit ® athletes and physically-active adults [ 19 ], were drawn for the present study. All athletes were free of any physical limitations (determined by medical and physical-activity history questionnaire and PAR-Q+), had been regularly (>three sessions per week) participating in resistance and CrossFit ® training for a minimum of two years, and had signed up to compete in the 2018 CFO upon their own initiative.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of CrossFit Open Performance

Mangine

Tankersley

McDougle

et al. 2020

Self Cite

The 2018 CrossFit Open (CFO) was the initial stage of an annual competition that consisted of five weekly workouts. Current evidence suggests that a variety of fitness parameters are important for progressing beyond this stage, but little is known about which are the most important. To examine relationships between CFO performance, experience, and physiological fitness, sixteen experienced (>2 years) athletes (30.7 ± 6.9 years, 171 ± 12 cm, 78.0 ± 16.2 kg) volunteered to provide information about their training and competitive history, and then complete a battery of physiological assessments prior to competing in the 2018 CFO. Athletes’ resting energy expenditure, hormone concentrations, body composition, muscle morphology, cardiorespiratory fitness, and isometric strength were assessed on two separate occasions. Spearman correlations demonstrated significant (p < 0.05) relationships between most variables and performance on each workout. Stepwise regression revealed competition experience (R2 = 0.31–0.63), body composition (R2 = 0.55–0.80), vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (R2 = 0.29–0.89), respiratory compensation threshold (R2 = 0.54–0.75), and rate of force development (R2 = 0.30–0.76) to be the most common predictors. Of these, body composition was the most important. These fitness parameters are known targets with established training recommendations. Though preliminary, athletes may use these data to effectively train for CFO competition.