Predicting the Unknown and the Unknowable. Are Anthropometric Measures and Fitness Profile Associated with the Outcome of a Simulated CrossFit ® Competition?

• Published in: International journal of environmental research and public health Vol. 18; no. 7; p. 3692
• Main Authors: Peña, Javier, Moreno-Doutres, Daniel, Peña, Iván, Chulvi-Medrano, Iván, Ortegón, Alberto, Aguilera-Castells, Joan, Buscà, Bernat
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 01.04.2021; MDPI
• Subjects: Accuracy; Adult; Anaerobic threshold; Anthropometry; Athletes; Bivariate analysis; Body composition; Body measurements; Competition; Correlation coefficient; Correlation coefficients; Endurance; Exercise; Exercise Test; Humans; Male; Maximum oxygen consumption; Maximum power; Muscle Strength; Participation; Physical Fitness; Principal components analysis; Simulation; United Kingdom > UK; United States > US; Norway; Germany; cross-training; functional fitness; performance; high-intensity functional training; athlete
• ISSN: 1660-4601; 1661-7827; 1660-4601
• DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18073692

The main objective of this research was to find associations between the outcome of a simulated CrossFit competition, anthropometric measures, and standardized fitness tests. Ten experienced male CrossFit athletes (age 28.8 ± 3.5 years; height 175 ± 10.0 cm; weight 80.3 ± 12.5 kg) participated in a simulated CrossFit competition with three benchmark workouts ("Fran", "Isabel", and "Kelly") and underwent fitness tests. Participants were tested for anthropometric measures, sit and reach, squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), and Reactive Strength Index (RSI), and the load (LOAD) corresponding to the highest mean power value (POWER) in the snatch, bench press, and back squat exercises was determined using incremental tests. A bivariate correlation test and k-means cluster analysis to group individuals as either high-performance (HI) or low performance (LO) via Principal Component Analysis (PCA) were carried out. Pearson's correlation coefficient two-tailed test showed that the only variable correlated with the final score was the snatch LOAD ( < 0.05). Six performance variables (SJ, CMJ, RSI, snatch LOAD, bench press LOAD, and back squat LOAD) explained 74.72% of the variance in a k = 2 means cluster model. When CrossFit performance groups HI and LO were compared to each other, -test revealed no difference at a ≤ 0.05 level. Snatch maximum power LOAD and the combination of six physical fitness tests partially explained the outcome of a simulated CrossFit competition. Coaches and practitioners can use these findings to achieve a better fit of the practices and workouts designed for their athletes.