Effect of the Fran CrossFit Workout on Oxygen Uptake Kinetics, Energetics, and Postexercise Muscle Function in Trained CrossFitters

The physical demands and physiological responses to CrossFit®: a scoping review with evidence gap map and meta-correlation

BACKGROUND

CrossFit® combines different types of activities (weightlifting, gymnastics, and cardiovascular training) that challenge aerobic and anaerobic pathways. Over the last few years, the scientific interest in CrossFit® has increased considerably. However, there have been no published reviews characterizing the physical demands and physiological responses to CrossFit®. The present study synthesizes current evidence on the physical demands and physiological responses to CrossFit®.

METHODS

The search was performed in three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). Manuscripts related to the physical and physiological performance of adult CrossFit® participants written in English, Portuguese, and Spanish were retrieved for the analysis.

RESULTS

In addition, a meta-correlation was conducted to examine the predictors of CrossFit® performance. A total of 68 papers were included in the review. Physical and physiological markers differed between the different workouts analyzed. In addition, 48 to 72 h are needed to recover from a CrossFit® challenge. Specific tests that involve CrossFit® movements were more related to CrossFit® performance than non-specific.

CONCLUSION

Although the characterization of CrossFit® is dependent on the workout examined, the benefits of muscle hypertrophy are aligned with the recent findings of concurrent training. The characterization of CrossFit® entire sessions and appropriate recovery strategies should be considered in future studies to help coaches manipulate and adjust the training load.

Assessment of Angular and Straight Linear Rowing Ergometers at Different Intensities of Exercise

We aimed to conduct a biophysical comparison of angular (Biorower) and linear (Concept2) rowing ergometers across a wide spectrum of exercise intensities. Sixteen (eleven male) skilled rowers, aged 29.8 ± 8.6 and 23.6 ± 1.5 years, with international competitive experience, performed 7 × 3 min bouts with 30 W increments and 60 s intervals, plus 1 min of all-out rowing on both machines with 48 h in between. The ventilatory and kinematical variables were measured breath-by-breath using a telemetric portable gas analyzer and determined using a full-body markerless system, respectively. Similar values of oxygen uptake were observed between ergometers across all intensity domains (e.g., 60.36 ± 8.40 vs. 58.14 ± 7.55 mL/min/kg for the Biorower and Concept2 at severe intensity). The rowing rate was higher on the Biorower vs. Concept2 at heavy and severe intensities (27.88 ± 3.22 vs. 25.69 ± 1.99 and 30.63 ± 3.18 vs. 28.94 ± 2.29). Other differences in kinematics were observed across all intensity domains, particularly in the thorax angle at the finish (e.g., 19.44 ± 4.49 vs. 27.51 ± 7.59° for the Biorower compared to Concep2 at heavy intensity), likely due to closer alignment of the Biorower with an on-water rowing technique. The overall perceived effort was lower on the Biorower when compared to the Concept2 (14.38 ± 1.76 vs. 15.88 ± 1.88). Rowers presented similar cardiorespiratory function on both rowing ergometers, while important biomechanical differences were observed, possibly due to the Biorower's closer alignment with an on-water rowing technique.

Exploring the relationship between Total Athleticism score and CrossFit® Open Performance in amateur athletes: single measure involving body fat percentage, aerobic capacity, muscle power and local muscle endurance

There has been an increasing interest among CrossFit® coaches and practitioners in identifying indicators of sport performance. This study aimed to examine the correlation between anthropometric measures, cardiorespiratory capacity, power, local muscle endurance, and total athleticism score, with performance in the CrossFit® Open 2021. Fourteen male volunteers (aged 30.3 ± 5.8 years) participated in the study and underwent a series of tests on separate weeks. These tests included assessments of body fat percentage (subcutaneous adipose thickness measured at seven sites), maximal oxygen consumption (2 km test in rowing ergometer), muscle power (one repetition maximum in power clean), and muscle endurance (Tibana test, which included the conclusion of four distinct rounds of work). These results were used to calculate the total score of athleticism, which was then compared to the participants performance during the CrossFit® Open 2021. The athletes presented an average of body fat (8.6 ± 2.0%), maximal oxygen consumption (53.3 ± 2.4 mL. (kg.min)-1), 2km row time (07:00 ± 00:21 mm:ss), 1-Repetition maximum in power clean (125.2 ± 21.2 kg) and Tibana test performance (281.0 ± 35.9 repetitions). Interestingly, the top five athletes with the highest scores also achieved the highest z-scores in the CrossFit® Open 2021. Conversely, the four athletes with the lowest TSA score had the lowest z-scores in the CrossFit® Open. Moreover, almost perfect correlation (r = 0.91; p<0.01) was found between the total athleticism score and z-scores in the CrossFit® Open 2021. The total score may be a single measure and holistic indication of athleticism level in CrossFit®. Furthermore, coaches can potentially apply this useful tool for monitoring athletic performance and designing training sessions that address specific areas of CrossFit® performance.

Assessment of Cardiorespiratory and Metabolic Contributions in an Extreme Intensity CrossFit® Benchmark Workout

Our purpose was to characterize the oxygen uptake kinetics (VO2), energy systems contributions and total energy expenditure during a CrossFit® benchmark workout performed in the extreme intensity domain. Fourteen highly trained male CrossFitters, aged 28.3 ± 5.4 years, with height 177.8 ± 9.4 cm, body mass 87.9 ± 10.5 kg and 5.6 ± 1.8 years of training experience, performed the Isabel workout at maximal exertion. Cardiorespiratory variables were measured at baseline, during exercise and the recovery period, with blood lactate and glucose concentrations, including the ratings of perceived exertion, measured pre- and post-workout. The Isabel workout was 117 ± 10 s in duration and the VO2 peak was 47.2 ± 4.7 mL·kg-1·min-1, the primary component amplitude was 42.0 ± 6.0 mL·kg-1·min-1, the time delay was 4.3 ± 2.2 s and the time constant was 14.2 ± 6.0 s. The accumulated VO2 (0.6 ± 0.1 vs. 4.8 ± 1.0 L·min-1) value post-workout increased substantially when compared to baseline. Oxidative phosphorylation (40%), glycolytic (45%) and phosphagen (15%) pathways contributed to the 245 ± 25 kJ total energy expenditure. Despite the short ~2 min duration of the Isabel workout, the oxygen-dependent and oxygen-independent metabolism energy contributions to the total metabolic energy release were similar. The CrossFit® Isabel requires maximal effort and the pattern of physiological demands identifies this as a highly intensive and effective workout for developing fitness and conditioning for sports.