top of page

Can physiological tests in the lab predict CrossFit® performance?

🔥 CrossFit® specific study!


🤝 In the traditional world of Sport Sciences it are lab-based tests that are the golden standard to assess whether an athlete has a specific physiological profile (strength, endurance, power,…). While in CrossFit®, a mix of different movements in different time-domains are used to test overall fitness. Can these two worlds rime?


👨‍💼 The authors of the study asked the question whether it was possible to predict CrossFit® performance (Open workouts 19.1 – 19.5) by testing subjects the traditional way in the lab.

15 recreational CrossFit® participants (inclusion criteria were ≥1-year experience in CrossFit®, training ≥ 3 times per week during the preceding year) were first assessed in the lab (see slide 2 for details) and then performed all the Open workouts in 5 consecutive weeks.


📈📉 The results might not surprise you that much. Basically all tests predicted the performance in the CrossFit® workouts. See slide 3. Sorry for the almost unreadable table, but that is how the authors decided to present the data….


💪 💦 Lower body power (jump ability), anaerobic capacity (wingate test), aerobic capacity (VO2 max) and raw strength (backsquat and bench) all correlated pretty well with most of the workouts. Jep, you need to be good at everything to dominate in CrossFit®. Nothing new here.


🧐 What is interesting is that the authors performed a multiple regression analysis to check which parameters were the best in predicting the variance in CrossFit® performance. Which parameters were ‘the most important’. By doing this, it was found that especially lower body jump ability and VO2 max were really important indices to predict future Open performance. Do you have big engine and you can jump high as well? Sign-up for a CrossFit® class, you might become the next @justinmedeiros34 or @tiaclair1 😀

-

Full text (free download): Martinez-Gomez, international Journal of Environmental Research and Publlic Health, 2020 DOI: doi:10.3390/ijerph17103699






Comments


bottom of page