Back

Physiological Profiles of Male and Female CrossFit Athletes

Hodzic, D.; D'Hulst, G.; Leuenberger, R.; Arnet, J.; Westerhuis, E.; Roth, R.; Schmidt-Trucksass, A.; Knaier, R.; Wagner, J.

2023-10-15 physiology
10.1101/2023.10.11.561828 bioRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo 1) establish extensive physiological profiles of highly-trained CrossFit athletes using gold-standard tests and 2) investigate which physiological markers best correlate with CrossFit(R) Open performance. MethodsThis study encompassed sixty participants (30 males and 30 females), all within the top 5% of the CrossFit(R) Open, including 7 CrossFit(R) Semi-finalists and 3 Games finalists. Isokinetic dynamometers were employed to measure maximum isometric and isokinetic leg and trunk strength. Countermovement jump height and maximum isometric mid-thigh pull strength were assessed on a force plate. V{square}O2peak was measured by a cardiopulmonary exercise test, while critical power and W were evaluated during a 3-minute all-out test, both on a cycle ergometer. ResultsMale and female athletes median (IQR) V{square}O2peak was 4.64 (4.43, 4.80) and 3.21 (3.10, 3.29) (L{middle dot}min-1), critical power 314.5 (285.9, 343.6) and 221.3 (200.9, 238.9) (W) and mid-thigh pull 3158 (2690, 3462) and 2035 (1728, 2347) (N). Linear regression analysis shows strong evidence for associations between different anthropometric variables and CrossFit(R) Open performance in men and women, whereas for markers of cardiorespiratory fitness such as V{square}O2peak this was only true for women but not men. Conventional laboratory evaluations of strength, however, manifest minimal evidence for associations with Open performance across both sexes. ConclusionsThis study provides the first detailed insights into the physiology of high-performing CrossFit(R) athletes and informs training optimization. Further the results emphasize the advantage of athletes with shorter limbs and suggests potential modifications to Open workout designs to level the playing field for athletes across different anthropometrics characteristics.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.