The aim of this study was to determine the physiological variables that predict competition performance during a CrossFit competition. Fifteen male amateur CrossFit athletes (age, 35 ± 9 years; CrossFit experience, 40 ± 27 months) performed a series of laboratory-based tests (incremental load test for deep full squat and bench press; squat, countermovement and drop jump tests; and incremental running and Wingate tests) that were studied as potential predictors of CrossFit performance. Thereafter, they performed the five Workouts of the Day (WODs) corresponding to the CrossFit Games Open 2019, and we assessed the relationship between the laboratory-based markers and CrossFit performance with regression analyses. Overall CrossFit performance (i.e., final ranking considering the sum of all WODs, as assessed by number of repetitions, time spent in exercises or weight lifted) was significantly related to jump ability, mean and peak power output during the Wingate test, relative maximum strength for the deep full squat and the bench press, and maximum oxygen uptake (VO_2max) and speed during the incremental test (all p < 0.05, r = 0.58–0.75). However, the relationship between CrossFit Performance and most laboratory markers varied depending on the analyzed WOD. Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that measures of lower-body muscle power (particularly jump ability) and VO_2max explained together most of the variance (R² = 81%, p < 0.001) in overall CrossFit performance. CrossFit performance is therefore associated with different power-, strength-, and aerobic-related markers.

Purpose: To compare endurance, strength and body composition indicators between cyclists of three different competition age categories.Methods: Fifty-one male road cyclists classified as either junior (n = 13, age 16.4 ± 0.5 years), under-23 [(U23), n = 24, 19.2 ± 1.3 years] or professional (n = 14, 26.1 ± 4.8 years) were studied. Endurance (assessed through a maximal incremental test and an 8-minute time-trial), strength/power (assessed through incremental loading tests for the squat, lunge and hip thrust exercises) and body composition (assessed through dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) were determined on three different testing sessions.Results: U23 and, particularly professional, cyclists attained significantly (p < 0.05) higher values than juniors for most of the analyzed endurance indicators [time-trial performance, maximum oxygen uptake (VO_2max), peak power output (PPO), respiratory compensation point (RCP), and ventilatory threshold (VT)]. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between U23 and professionals were also found for time-trial performance, PPO and VT, but not for other markers such as VO_2max or RCP. Professional cyclists also showed significantly (p < 0.05) lower relative fat mass and higher muscle mass levels than U23 and, particularly, juniors. No consistent differences between age categories were found for muscle strength/power indicators.Conclusion: Endurance (particularly time-trial performance, PPO and VT) and body composition (fat and muscle mass) appear as factors that best differentiate between cyclists of different age categories, whereas no consistent differences are found for muscle strength/power. These findings might help in performance prediction and/or talent identification and may aid in guiding coaches in the design of training programs focused on improving those variables that appear more determinant.

We assessed the effects of a short-term velocity-based resistance training (VBRT, where exercise intensity is individualized based on the loads and repetitions that maximize power output) program compared with traditional resistance training (TRT, where the same number of repetitions and relative load are used for every individual) on body composition, muscle strength/power, and endurance performance in competitive female cyclists. Seventeen participants were randomly assigned to 6 weeks (two sessions/week) of TRT (n = 8) or VBRT (n = 9), during which they maintained their usual endurance program. Both interventions included squat, hip thrust, and split squat exercises. Training loads were continuously registered, and outcomes were measures of muscle strength/power, body composition, and endurance performance (incremental test and 8-min time trial). No differences between TRT and VBRT groups were found for overall internal training loads during resistance training or cycling sessions (p > 0.05). Both interventions led to significant improvements in all strength/power-related outcomes, but VBRT induced greater improvements than TRT in maximum muscle strength and power as assessed with the hip thrust exercise (p < 0.05 for the group by time interaction effect). However, no significant group by time interaction effect was found for body composition or endurance performance-related outcomes. In conclusion, the addition of a short-term intervention of VBRT or TRT to the usual training regimen of competitive female cyclists improves muscle strength/power, albeit VBRT might induce superior gains on maximum strength/power for the hip thrust exercise.

Cycling power meters enable monitoring external loads and performance changes. We aimed to determine the concurrent validity of the novel Favero Assioma Duo (FAD) pedal power meter compared with the crank-based SRM system (considered as gold standard). Thirty-three well-trained male cyclists were assessed at different power output (PO) levels (100–500 W and all-out 15-s sprints), pedaling cadences (75–100 rpm) and cycling positions (seating and standing) to compare the FAD device vs. SRM. No significant differences were found between devices for cadence nor for PO during all-out efforts (p > 0.05), although significant but small differences were found for efforts at lower PO values (p < 0.05 for 100–500 W, mean bias 3–8 W). A strong agreement was observed between both devices for mean cadence (ICC > 0.87) and PO values (ICC > 0.81) recorded in essentially all conditions and for peak cadence (ICC > 0.98) and peak PO (ICC > 0.99) during all-out efforts. The coefficient of variation for PO values was consistently lower than 3%. In conclusion, the FAD pedal-based power meter can be considered an overall valid system to record PO and cadence during cycling, although it might present a small bias compared with power meters placed on other locations such as SRM.

Purpose: To analyze the relationship between critical power (CP) and different lactate threshold (LT2) markers in cyclists.Methods: Seventeen male recreational cyclists [33 ± 5 years, peak power output (PO) = 4.5 ± 0.7 W/kg] were included in the study. The PO associated with four different fixed (onset of blood lactate accumulation) and individualized (Dmax_exp, Dmax_pol, and LT_Δ1) LT2 markers was determined during a maximal incremental cycling test, and CP was calculated from three trials of 1-, 5-, and 20-min duration. The relationship and agreement between each LT2 marker and CP were then analyzed.Results: Strong correlations (r = 0.81–0.98 for all markers) and trivial-to-small non-significant differences (Hedges’ g = 0.01–0.17, bias = 1–9 W, and p > 0.05) were found between all LT2 markers and CP with the exception of Dmax_exp, which showed the strongest correlation but was slightly higher than the CP (Hedges’ g = 0.43, bias = 20 W, and p < 0.001). Wide limits of agreement (LoA) were, however, found for all LT2 markers compared with CP (from ±22 W for Dmax_exp to ±52 W for Dmax_pol), and unclear to most likely practically meaningful differences (PO differences between markers >1%, albeit <5%) were found between markers attending to magnitude-based inferences.Conclusion: LT2 markers show a strong association and overall trivial-to-small differences with CP. Nevertheless, given the wide LoA and the likelihood of potentially meaningful differences between these endurance-related markers, caution should be employed when using them interchangeably.

This study examined the force–velocity profile differences between men and women in three variations of row exercises. Twenty-eight participants (14 men and 14 women) underwent maximum dynamic strength assessments in the free prone bench row (PBR), bent-over barbell row (BBOR), and Smith machine bent-over row (SMBOR) in a randomized order. Subjects performed a progressive loading test from 30 to 100% of 1-RM (repetition maximum), and the mean propulsive velocity was measured in all attempts. Linear regression analyses were conducted to establish the relationships between the different measures of bar velocity and % 1-RM. The ANOVAs applied to the mean velocity achieved in each % 1-RM tested revealed significantly higher velocity values for loads < 65% 1-RM in SMBOR compared to BBOR (p < 0.05) and higher velocities for loads < 90% 1-RM in SMBOR compared to PBR (p < 0.05) for both sexes. Furthermore, men provided significantly higher velocity values than women (PBR 55–100% 1-RM; BBOR and SMBOR < 85% 1-RM; p < 0.05) and significant differences were found between exercises and sex for 30–40% 1-RM. These results confirm that men have higher velocities at different relative loads (i.e., % 1-RM) compared to women during upper-body rowing exercises.