Analysis Of Morphofunctional Variables Associated With .


Journal of Human Kinetics volume 73/2020, 83-91 DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2019-0134Section II ‐ Exercise Physiology & Sports Medicine83Analysis of Morphofunctional Variables Associatedwith Performance in Crossfit CompetitorsbyLuis Arturo Gómez-Landero1, Juan Miguel Frías-Menacho2CrossFit is a competitive sport and fitness modality characterized by multiple physical capabilities andmulti-joint movements. This study aimed to analyse and classify variables related to CrossFit competitors’ specificperformance. Fifteen male CrossFit competitors were selected (n 15; 30.57 5.5 years; 1.76 0.06 m; 78.55 9.12kg). Mean values were obtained for body mass index (25.3 2.14 kg/m2), 4 skinfolds, 1 repetition maximum in thesquat (137.60 19.65 kg) and the bench press (101.67 10.64 kg), maximum pull-ups (18.87 5.05), sit-ups in 60 s(46.60 4.22), peak power in the countermovement jump (3908.04 423.68 W), VO2max with a shuttle run test(47.70 4.79 ml kg-1·min-1), and time in the Workout of the Day (WOD) “Fran” (337.13 119.19 s) and “DonkeyKong” (417.47 98.44 s) components. Principal component analysis was conducted to classify variables and to selectthose most related to each new component (“strength and muscle mass”, “adiposity” and “aerobic capacity”). Thecorrelation matrix was analysed, indicating significant correlations between “Donkey Kong” and VO2max (r -.675; p .01), suprailiac skinfold (r .713; p .01) and sit-ups (r -.563; p .05); and between “Fran” and squat (r -.528; p .05). Three important components characterizing CrossFit competitors were identified: “strength and musclemass”, low “adiposity” and “aerobic capacity”. Significant relationships between morphofunctional variables andCrossfit performance were found in Crossfit competitors.Key words: high intensity interval training, power, principal component analysis, Crossfit, performance.IntroductionCrossFit has grown significantly as afitness modality and competitive sport in recentyears. CrossFit is characterized by the highintensity of its workouts, the execution of a largenumber of varied movements, and differentexpressions of physical fitness, particularlystrength and endurance. This research seeksanswers to questions related to CrossFit’s benefits,risks, and potential improvements in the trainingprocess and subsequent performance.According to the American College ofSports Medicine, high-intensity interval training(HIIT) is currently the leading trend in fitnessworldwide, ranking first since 2014 (Thompson,2017). CrossFit is probably the HIIT-basedexercise program with the highest growth overthe last 10 years; the website states12that there were 11,677 CrossFit gyms worldwidein 2015 and 324,307 participants from 175countries took part in the CrossFit Games Open2016.CrossFittrainingprogramsarecharacterized by constantly varied multi-jointmovements, including weight-lifting and bodyweight exercises, performed at submaximalintensities. The main unit of training is theworkout of the day (WOD), in which as manyrounds as possible of the exercise are completedwithin a certain time (as many repetitions aspossible - AMRAP). Alternatively, the workout isnot timed and focuses on a single, complex skill,which is not yet adequate for efficient inclusion ina timed workout. WODs combine traditionalcardiovascular exercises such as running, cyclingor rowing, with movements from the fields of- Department of Sport and Computer Science, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain.- Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain.Authors submitted their contribution to the article to the editorial board.Accepted for printing in the Journal of Human Kinetics vol. 73/2020 in July 2020.

84Analysis of morphofunctional variables associated with performance in Crossfit competitorsWeightlifting, Powerlifting, Strongman andGymnastics (Glassman, 2003, 2017).CrossFit sessions are usually scored andrecorded, allowing individuals to track theirperformance and thus compare the weight lifted,the number of repetitions completed in a giventime, or the time spent performing a set ofexercises. Recent research on the motivation ofCrossFit practitioners (Sibley and Bergman, 2017)suggests that the group and its competitiveenvironment can easily lead participants to focuson the social recognition of competition ratherthan motivations related to health, potentiallycreating situations that could lead to overtrainingor other unhealthy behaviours. However,publishing records can also allow practitioners toevaluate their progression, thus improving theirsense of competence (Sibley and Bergman, 2017).Montalvo et al. (2017) indicate that WODsusually mix aerobic and anaerobic exercises withmovements of high technical complexityperformed under conditions of cardiovascularand muscular fatigue, contrasting with theprinciples of traditional training, which promotethe execution of multiarticular power movementsfirst, to maximize the load and preservetechnique. They also point out that fatigueassociated with high-intensity anaerobic exercisecan cause loss of concentration and affecttechnique, so that injuries may occur (Montalvo etal., 2017). The harmful potential of CrossFit iscurrently being studied from several perspectives(Meyer et al., 2017).The rapid and widespread growth ofCrossFit as a fitness modality and sport,combined with its competitive nature and itsharmful potential, requires parallel analysis of thephysical and physiological characteristics thatmay allow for the improvement of trainingsystems.Very few studies exist (Claudino et al.,2018) that evaluate and describe the physicalcapacities of CrossFit competitors (Bellar et al.,2015; Butcher et al., 2015; Eremin et al., 2014).Aerobic and anaerobic capacities are the moststudied variables to date; improvements areassociated with higher performance in WODs(Bellar et al., 2015), although Butcher et al. (2015)found that only whole-body strength can partiallyexplain performance in the WODs “Grace” and“Fran”. Eremin et al. (2014), in a study of the eliteJournal of Human Kinetics - volume 73/2020Russian CrossFit competitors, found that theirparticipants exhibited substantial myocardialgrowth and increased stroke volume.In relation to physical characteristics,there are also little data describing CrossFitcompetitors; Tibana (2018) found body fat levelsof between 12-14% in male CrossFit competitorsand a Body Mass Index (BMI) of around 26 kg/m2.To improve the training process it isessential to obtain more data about the mostimportant variables associated with performance.Therefore, the aims of this study were toanalyse CrossFit competitors’ physical capacities(maximum strength, strength endurance andaerobiccapacity)andmorphologicalcharacteristics (subcutaneous fat and Body MassIndex (BMI)) as well as to determine theirrelationship with specific performance.MethodsParticipantsThe sample consisted of 15 experiencedmale CrossFit practitioners (age: 30.57 5.5 years,body height: 1.76 0.06 m, body mass: 78.55 9.12kg; BMI: 25.30 2.14 kg/m2; mean SD) whoparticipated in amateur competitions, in the Scaledcategory (an easier adaptation of the highestcategory, Rx). Participants signed a letter ofconsent agreeing to take part in the studyvoluntarily, and were informed of the risks andbenefits of the study. The study complied with theregulations of the Research Ethics Committee ofthe Pablo de Olavide University, following theprinciples outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.Participants were selected by a Level 1CrossFit Coach, and all belonged to the FeelCrossFit training box. The inclusion criteriaestablished were: no muscle-tendon and/orosteoarticular lesions that could be aggravated bythe performance of the tests, no other type ofphysical training in addition to CrossFit, aminimum of 2 years of CrossFit experience, and atraining frequency of 4-5 days a week.InstrumentsMaximal isometric hand grip strengthwas measured with a Takei 5001 dynamometer(Takei Scientific Instruments, Tokyo, Japan).Morphological data were obtained using a Tanitadigital scale (HD-313 Tanita, Tokyo, Japan) with100 g precision, and a portable stadiometer with 1

by Luis Arturo Gómez-Landero Rodríguez and Juan Miguel Frías Menachomm precision and a Slim Guide calliper. Formaximal strength tests, a 20 kg Xenios bar andEleiko XF discs (1.25 -20 kg) were used; the CMJwas evaluated using the Optojump Next device(Optojump-next, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy).DesignThis was a descriptive and correlationalstudy, where the selected variables were notmanipulated, so they were not strictlyindependent or dependent variables. To explainthe possible associations, we ical and functional characteristics ofathletes, and as a dependent variable we used thetime taken for the WODs as a measure ofperformance.First, a descriptive analysis of all variableswas made; then a factorial analysis was appliedusing Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of themorphofunctional variables, in order to groupthem into a new, reduced set of factors, and toidentify the variables most associated with theextracted components. Finally, a correlationalanalysis was carried out between themorphofunctional variables and the performanceshown in the WODs. The independent anddependent variables are listed below.Independent variables: peak power (W) inthe countermovement jump (CMJ) obtained usingthe formula of Sayers et al. (1999); hand gripstrength (kg) (dynamometry); maximum numberof pull-ups and maximum number of sit-ups in 60s; 1 RM for the deep squat and the bench press(kg); maximum aerobic capacity (VO2max, ml·kg1·min-1) evaluated using the shuttle run test (SRT);body mass index (BMI, in kg/m²); and triceps,subscapular, suprailiac, thigh and calf skin folds(mm).Dependent variables: time taken tocomplete the WOD called "Fran" (WOD1 Fran)and the WOD "Donkey Kong" (WOD2 DK).These WODs were selected because they arecharacteristic of CrossFit (Claudino et al., 2018)and include different modes of exercise.ProceduresMeasurements were obtained at the FeelCrossFit training box on non-consecutive days,leaving 48 hours of recovery between tests. Allsessions started with a general 15-min warm-upwith continuous running, jumps, rowing and jointmobility, followed by a specific warm-up for each Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics85test. Before beginning each test, the protocolswere thoroughly explained, and supervised bythe researchers to ensure correct execution.Peak power. All subjects performed CMJtests for 4 min, with a 30 s rest interval betweeneach jump according to the protocol.Subsequently, 3 valid attempts were made perparticipant, with 40 s rest intervals between eachjump. The best result was selected to calculatepeak power (Sayers et al., 1999).Maximum number of pull-ups. The testconsisted of performing the maximum number ofpull-ups without swinging, to fatigue, countingonly the repetitions in which the chin came abovethe horizontal edge of the grip bar.Maximum number of sit-ups. An assistantheld the participant’s ankles to prevent him fromswinging with his feet. The maximum number oftrunk lifts from the horizontal to the knees wasdetermined over a period of 60 s.Hand dynamometry. Maximum gripstrength in both hands was assessed alternatelyusing three valid attempts, following the protocolof España-Romero et al. (2010). A pre-adjustmentof the grip of the dynamometer was madedepending on the size of the participant’s hand.Squat and bench press. Strength wasassessed using 5 maximal repetitions (5RM) in thefull squat and bench press (Gail et al., 2015). Aftercarrying out the general warm-up, athletesperformed a set of 10 repetitions at 50% of 1RM,then two further sets, one of 7 repetitions at 70%of 1RM and another of 6 repetitions at 80% of1RM. Finally, they performed the search phase ofthe 5RM. In this phase the weight was increasedto determine the 5RM. Rest intervals between setswere set at 4-5 minutes to allow completerecovery and achieve the 5 RM in less than 5attempts, before the onset of fatigue. From the5RM, 1RM was estimated (Reynolds et al., 2006).VO2max. Maximum aerobic capacity wasevaluated using the shuttle run test (SRT), giventhe validity and reliability shown in publishedstudies (Mayorga-Vega et al., 2015).WOD1 Fran. This WOD was composed of3 rounds, each with 21, 15 and 9 repetitions,respectively, of two exercises performed one afteranother: thrusters with 43 kg (exercise thatrequires performing a full squat followed by ashoulder press) and pull-ups, valid with any typeof technique (kipping, butterfly or strict). Kipping

86Analysis of morphofunctional variables associated with performance in Crossfit competitorsand butterfly pull-ups use the swingingmomentum of the whole body to assist withelevation of the body toward the pull-up bar(Dinunzio et al., 2018). After being given a startsignal, the participant tried to complete all therepetitions in the shortest possible time.WOD2 DK. The procedure in the WOD“Donkey Kong” also followed the sequence of 2115-9 in three rounds, but with three consecutiveexercises: burpees, kettlebell swings with 24 kg,and jumps onto a 24-inch box, all in the shortestpossible time.These WODs were selected because theyare characteristic of CrossFit and have been usedin previous studies (Babiash et al., 2013; Butcher etal., 2015).All morphological measurements weremade in accordance with the recommendations ofthe International Society for Advancement inKinanthropometry. The body mass index (BMI,kg/m²) was obtained using these measures. Eachskin fold was measured 3 times, taking theaverage value as the final data.Statistical analysisFollowingtherecommendationsproposed by Hopkins (2000) to control reliabilitybetween repeated measurements, the IntraclassCorrelation Coefficient (ICC) and the TechnicalError of Measurement (ETM) were evaluated. Inthe CMJ and dynamometry, the lowest measurewas disca

2017). CrossFit is probably the HIIT-based exercise program with the highest growth over the last 10 years; the website states that there were 11,677 CrossFit gyms worldwide in 2015 and 324,307 participants from 175 countries took part in the CrossFit Games Open 2016. CrossFit