Physiological Performance Measures as Indicators of CrossFit® Performance
1
Department of Exercise Science, Concordia University Chicago, Riverforest, IL 60305, USA
2
Department of Kinesiology, Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, CA 91702, USA
3
Division of Biokinesiology & Physical Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
4
Department of Kinesiology, Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, CA 92106, USA
5
Office of Research and Sponsored Projects, Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, Provo, UT 84606, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sports 2019, 7(4), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7040093
Received: 15 February 2019 / Revised: 16 April 2019 / Accepted: 17 April 2019 / Published: 22 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research on High Intensity Functional Training)
CrossFit® began as another exercise program to improve physical fitness and has rapidly grown into the “sport of fitness”. However, little is understood as to the physiological indicators that determine CrossFit® sport performance. The purpose of this study was to determine which physiological performance measure was the greatest indicator of CrossFit® workout performance. Male (n = 12) and female (n = 5) participants successfully completed a treadmill graded exercise test to measure maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), a 3-minute all-out running test (3MT) to determine critical speed (CS) and the finite capacity for running speeds above CS (D′), a Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT) to assess anaerobic peak and mean power, the CrossFit® total to measure total body strength, as well as the CrossFit® benchmark workouts: Fran, Grace, and Nancy. It was hypothesized that CS and total body strength would be the greatest indicators of CrossFit® performance. Pearson’s r correlations were used to determine the relationship of benchmark performance data and the physiological performance measures. For each benchmark-dependent variable, a stepwise linear regression was created using significant correlative data. For the workout Fran, back squat strength explained 42% of the variance. VO2max explained 68% of the variance for the workout Nancy. Lastly, anaerobic peak power explained 57% of the variance for performance on the CrossFit® total. In conclusion, results demonstrated select physiological performance variables may be used to predict CrossFit® workout performance.
View Full-Text
Keywords:
CrossFit® sport performance; physiological indicators; benchmark performance; VO2max; critical speed; D′; strength
▼
Show Figures
Figure 1
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
MDPI and ACS Style
Dexheimer, J.D.; Schroeder, E.T.; Sawyer, B.J.; Pettitt, R.W.; Aguinaldo, A.L.; Torrence, W.A. Physiological Performance Measures as Indicators of CrossFit® Performance. Sports 2019, 7, 93.
AMA Style
Dexheimer JD, Schroeder ET, Sawyer BJ, Pettitt RW, Aguinaldo AL, Torrence WA. Physiological Performance Measures as Indicators of CrossFit® Performance. Sports. 2019; 7(4):93.
Chicago/Turabian StyleDexheimer, Joshua D.; Schroeder, E. T.; Sawyer, Brandon J.; Pettitt, Robert W.; Aguinaldo, Arnel L.; Torrence, William A. 2019. "Physiological Performance Measures as Indicators of CrossFit® Performance" Sports 7, no. 4: 93.
Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
Search more from Scilit
