5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Predictors of CrossFit Open Performance

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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 (R 2 = 0.31–0.63), body composition (R 2 = 0.55–0.80), vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (R 2 = 0.29–0.89), respiratory compensation threshold (R 2 = 0.54–0.75), and rate of force development (R 2 = 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Functional and clinical significance of skeletal muscle architecture.

          Skeletal muscle architecture is the structural property of whole muscles that dominates their function. This review describes the basic architectural properties of human upper and lower extremity muscles. The designs of various muscle groups in humans and other species are analyzed from the point of view of optimizing function. Muscle fiber arrangement and motor unit arrangement is discussed in terms of the control of movement. Finally, the ability of muscles to change their architecture in response to immobilization, eccentric exercise, and surgical tendon transfer is reviewed. Future integrative physiological studies will provide insights into the mechanisms by which such adaptations occur. It is likely that muscle fibers transduce both stress and strain and respond by modifying sarcomere number in a way more suited to the new biomechanical environment. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Hormonal Responses and Adaptations to Resistance Exercise and Training

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Measurement of intramuscular fat by muscle echo intensity.

              The aim of this study was to compare ultrasound echo intensity (EI) with high-resolution T1 -weighted MRI and to establish calibration equations to estimate percent intramuscular fat from EI.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sports (Basel)
                Sports (Basel)
                sports
                Sports
                MDPI
                2075-4663
                20 July 2020
                July 2020
                : 8
                : 7
                : 102
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Exercise Science and Sport Management, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA; jlipham1@ 123456students.kennesaw.edu (J.E.T.); jmcdou11@ 123456students.kennesaw.edu (J.M.M.); nvelazqu@ 123456students.kennesaw.edu (N.V.); tesmat@ 123456kennesaw.edu (T.A.E.); tvanduss@ 123456kennesaw.edu (T.A.V.); yfeito@ 123456kennesaw.edu (Y.F.)
                [2 ]School of Kinesiology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA; mdr0024@ 123456auburn.edu
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: gmangine@ 123456kennesaw.edu ; Tel.: +1-470-578-3425
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2718-2564
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7359-5362
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9057-2720
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6790-6294
                Article
                sports-08-00102
                10.3390/sports8070102
                7404807
                32698335
                61697236-943a-4bdd-9f2f-ebb0bcf52308
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 19 June 2020
                : 16 July 2020
                Categories
                Article

                high intensity functional training,athlete,critical power,aerobic capacity,ultrasound

                Comments

                Comment on this article