journal article·2024-04-15Open access

The Role of Physical Fitness on FRAN CrossFit® Workout Performance

Rafaellos Polydorou, Andreas Kyriacou-Rossi, Andreas Hadjipantelis, Christos Ioannides, Nikolaos Zaras

Applied Sciences· Volume 14· Issue 8

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of physical fitness on the FRAN CrossFit® workout time-trial. Twenty male athletes were divided into a fast group (FG) and a slow group (SG) according to the median value of the FRAN time-trial. Measurements included the FRAN time-trial, body composition analysis, isometric handgrip and isometric mid-thigh pull strength, countermovement jump (CMJ), 30 s continuous jumping test (CJ30), and one repetition maximum (1-RM) strength in the squat, thrusters, snatch, clean and jerk, and dead-lift. The FG had significantly lower body fat (p < 0.018), higher CMJ (p < 0.05), lower percentage decrement in CJ30 height (p = 0.023), and higher 1-RM strength (p < 0.05) compared to the SG. A significant correlation was found between the FRAN time-trial with percentage body fat (r = 0.512, p = 0.021) and with percentage decrement in CJ30 height (r = 0.454, p = 0.044). Performance in the FRAN time-trial was also correlated with CMJ variables (r ranged from 0.634 to 0.663, p < 0.05) and 1-RM strength (r ranged from 0.510 to 0.701, p < 0.05). These results suggest that the FG has a higher tolerance to fatigue and is stronger, more powerful, and has less body fat compared to the SG. Consequently, body fat, 1-RM strength, power, and anaerobic capacity may predict the FRAN time-trial in CrossFit® athletes.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Sports Performance and Training · Sports injuries and prevention · Cardiovascular and exercise physiology

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Life Sciences, School of Life and Health Sciences, University of Nicosia, Nicosia 1700, Cyprus

Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Democritus University of Thrace, 69100 Komotini, Greece

References (37)

Show source-provided references
1. CrossFit overview: Systematic review and meta-analysis10.1186/s40798-018-0124-5 ↗
2. Psychological variables of CrossFit participants: A systematic review10.1007/s11332-020-00685-9 ↗
3. The benefits and risks of CrossFit: A systematic review10.1177/2165079916685568 ↗
4. Dexheimer, J.D., Schroeder, E.T., Sawyer, B.J., Pettitt, R.W., Aguinaldo, A.L., and Torrence, W.A. (2019). Physiological performance measures as indicators of crossfit® performance. Sports, 7.10.3390/sports7040093 ↗
5. Martínez-Gómez, R., Valenzuela, P.L., Alejo, L.B., Gil-Cabrera, J., Montalvo-Pérez, A., Talavera, E., Lucia, A., Moral-Gonzáles, S., and Barranco-Gil, D. (2020). Physiological predictors of competition performance in CrossFit athletes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17.10.37247/PAENVR.1.2020.19 ↗
6. Zeitz, E.K., Cook, L.F., Dexheimer, J.D., Lemez, S., Leyva, W.D., Terbio, I.Y., Tran, J.R., and Jo, E. (2020). The relationship between crossfit® performance and laboratory-based measurements of fitness. Sports, 8.10.3390/sports8080112 ↗
7. Analysis of Morphofunctional Variables Associated with Performance in Crossfit Competitors10.2478/hukin-2019-0134 ↗
8. Leitão, L., Dias, M., Campos, Y., Vieira, J.G., Sant’Ana, L., Telles, L.G., Tavares, C., Mazini, M., Novaes, J., and Vianna, J. (2021). Physical and Physiological Predictors of FRAN CrossFit® WOD Athlete’s Performance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18.10.3390/ijerph18084070 ↗
9. High-intensity exercise decreases muscle buffer capacity via a decrease in protein buffering in human skeletal muscle10.1007/s00424-009-0673-z ↗
10. Comparison of muscle buffer capacity and repeated-sprint ability of untrained, endurance-trained and team-sport athletes10.1007/s00421-005-0056-x ↗
11. Repeated anaerobic tests predict performance among a group of advanced CrossFit-trained athletes10.1139/apnm-2018-0509 ↗
12. The relationship of aerobic capacity, anaerobic peak power and experience to performance in in CrossFit exercise10.5604/20831862.1174771 ↗
13. A simple method for measurement of mechanical power in jumping10.1007/BF00422166 ↗
14. Reliability and validity of the 30-s continuous jump test for anaerobic fitness evaluation10.1016/j.jsams.2013.09.007 ↗
15. The metabolic relevance of type of locomotion in anaerobic testing: Bosco continuous jumping test versus Wingate anaerobic test of the same duration10.1123/ijspp.2020-0669 ↗
16. The benefits and risks of the high-intensity CrossFit training10.1007/s11332-018-0521-7 ↗
17. Crossfit based high-intensity power training improves maximal aerobic fitness and body composition10.1519/JSC.0b013e318289e59f ↗
18. Mangine, G.T., Stratton, M.T., Almeda, C.G., Roberts, M.D., Esmat, T.A., VanDusseldorp, T.A., and Feito, Y. (2020). Physiological differences between advanced CrossFit athletes, recreational CrossFit participants, and physically-active adults. PLoS ONE, 15.10.1371/journal.pone.0223548 ↗
19. Relationships Between Body Composition and Performance in the High-Intensity Functional Training Workout “Fran” are Modulated by Competition Class and Percentile Rank10.3389/fphys.2022.893771 ↗
20. Panteli, N., Hadjicharalambous, M., and Zaras, N. (2023). Delayed Potentiation Effect on Sprint, Power and Agility Performance in Well-Trained Soccer Players. J. Sci. Sport Exerc., 1–9.10.1007/s42978-023-00225-0 ↗
21. Lower-body muscle structure and jump performance of stronger and weaker surfing athletes10.1123/ijspp.2015-0481 ↗
22. Triceps brachii muscle architecture, upper-body rate of force development, and bench press maximum strength of strong and weak trained participants10.5114/hm.2023.113714 ↗
23. Do physiological measures predict selected CrossFit® benchmark performance?10.2147/OAJSM.S88265 ↗
24. Anastasiou, G., Hadjicharalambous, M., Terzis, G., and Zaras, N. (2023). Reactive Strength Index, Rate of Torque Development, and Performance in Well-Trained Weightlifters: A Pilot Study. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol., 8.10.3390/jfmk8040161 ↗
25. Defining athletes and exercisers10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.11.001 ↗
26. Body composition using bioelectrical impedance analysis in elite young soccer players: The effects of age and playing position10.1007/s11332-015-0226-0 ↗
27. Reference values for handgrip strength and their association with intrinsic capacity domains among older adults10.1002/jcsm.12373 ↗
28. Acute effects of different intra-repetition rest configurations on barbell peak velocity during the jump-shrug exercise
29. Comparison of the Wingate and Bosco anaerobic tests
30. Frequency speed of kick test performance comparison between female taekwondo athletes of different competitive levels10.1519/JSC.0000000000002552 ↗
31. G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences10.3758/BF03193146 ↗
32. Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation10.1037/a0024338 ↗
33. Relationship between muscle buffering capacity and fiber type during anaerobic exercise in human
34. Bioenergetic Analysis and Fatigue Assessment During the Fran Workout in Experienced Crossfitters10.1123/ijspp.2022-0411 ↗
35. Improving health-related fitness in adolescents: The CrossFit Teens™ randomised controlled trial10.1080/02640414.2015.1045925 ↗
36. Effect of Crossfit Training on Jump and Strength
37. Meier, N., Schlie, J., and Schmidt, A. (2023). CrossFit®: ‘Unknowable’ or Predictable?—A Systematic Review on Predictors of CrossFit® Performance. Sports, 11.10.3390/sports11060112 ↗