Next Article in Journal
Validity of the Stryd Power Meter in Measuring Running Parameters at Submaximal Speeds
Previous Article in Journal
The Effects of Loaded Plyometric Exercise during Warm-Up on Subsequent Sprint Performance in Collegiate Track Athletes: A Randomized Trial
Article

Predictors of CrossFit Open Performance

1
Department of Exercise Science and Sport Management, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA
2
School of Kinesiology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sports 2020, 8(7), 102; https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070102
Received: 19 June 2020 / Revised: 12 July 2020 / Accepted: 16 July 2020 / Published: 20 July 2020
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: high intensity functional training; athlete; critical power; aerobic capacity; ultrasound high intensity functional training; athlete; critical power; aerobic capacity; ultrasound
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Mangine, G.T.; Tankersley, J.E.; McDougle, J.M.; Velazquez, N.; Roberts, M.D.; Esmat, T.A.; VanDusseldorp, T.A.; Feito, Y. Predictors of CrossFit Open Performance. Sports 2020, 8, 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070102

AMA Style

Mangine GT, Tankersley JE, McDougle JM, Velazquez N, Roberts MD, Esmat TA, VanDusseldorp TA, Feito Y. Predictors of CrossFit Open Performance. Sports. 2020; 8(7):102. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070102

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mangine, Gerald T., Joy E. Tankersley, Jacob M. McDougle, Nathanael Velazquez, Michael D. Roberts, Tiffany A. Esmat, Trisha A. VanDusseldorp, and Yuri Feito. 2020. "Predictors of CrossFit Open Performance" Sports 8, no. 7: 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070102

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop