Next Article in Journal
Validation of Inertial Sensor to Measure Barbell Kinematics across a Spectrum of Loading Conditions
Next Article in Special Issue
Heart Rate Variability and Direct Current Measurement Characteristics in Professional Mixed Martial Arts Athletes
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Plyometric and Repeated Sprint Training on Physical Performance
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Federated Practice of Soccer Influences Hamstring Flexibility in Healthy Adolescents: Role of Age and Weight Status
Open AccessArticle

Physiological Predictors of Performance on the CrossFit “Murph” Challenge

Biodynamics and Human Performance Center, Georgia Southern University (Armstrong Campus), Savannah, GA 31419, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sports 2020, 8(7), 92; https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070092
Received: 3 June 2020 / Revised: 22 June 2020 / Accepted: 23 June 2020 / Published: 28 June 2020
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: CrossFit; Murph; body fat; strength; fitness; Wingate; VO2max CrossFit; Murph; body fat; strength; fitness; Wingate; VO2max
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Carreker, J.D.; Grosicki, G.J. Physiological Predictors of Performance on the CrossFit “Murph” Challenge. Sports 2020, 8, 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070092

AMA Style

Carreker JD, Grosicki GJ. Physiological Predictors of Performance on the CrossFit “Murph” Challenge. Sports. 2020; 8(7):92. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070092

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carreker, Ja’Deon D.; Grosicki, Gregory J. 2020. "Physiological Predictors of Performance on the CrossFit “Murph” Challenge" Sports 8, no. 7: 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports8070092

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
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop