Caffeine (CAF) ingestion improves performance in a broad range of exercise tasks. Nevertheless, the CAF-induced, dose-dependent effect on discipline-specific performance and cognitive functions in CrossFit/High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT) has not been sufficiently investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of acute supplementation of three different doses of CAF and placebo (PLA) on specific performance, reaction time (R_Time), postural stability (P_Stab), heart rate (HR) and perceived exertion (RPE). In a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design, acute pre-exercise supplementation with CAF (3, 6, or 9 mg/kg body mass (BM)) and PLA in 26 moderately trained CrossFit practitioners was examined. The study protocol involved five separate testing sessions using the Fight Gone Bad test (FGB) as the exercise performance evaluation and biochemical analyses, HR and RPE monitoring, as well as the assessment of R_Time and P_Stab, with regard to CYP1A2 (rs762551) and ADORA2A (rs5751876) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). Supplementation of 6 mg_CAF/kg_BM induced clinically noticeable improvements in FGB_Total results, R_Time and pre-exercise motor time. Nevertheless, there were no significant differences between any CAF doses and PLA in FGB_Total, HR_max, HR_mean, RPE, pre/post-exercise R_Time, P_Stab variables or pyruvate concentrations. Lactate concentration was higher (p < 0.05) before and after exercise in all CAF doses than in PLA. There was no effect of CYP1A2 or ADORA2A SNPs on performance. The dose-dependent effect of CAF supplementation appears to be limited to statistically nonsignificant but clinically considered changes on specific performance, R_Time, P_Stab, RPE or HR. However, regarding practical CAF-induced performance implications in CrossFit/HIFT, 6 mg_CAF/kg_BM may be supposed as the most rational supplementation strategy.

Cross-training is a high-intensity functional training (HIFT) with multiple workout modalities. Despite the increasing number of studies in HIFT, there is still no validated test to measure its specific performance. It would also be advisable to determine whether selected cross-training workouts can implement a stimulus corresponding to maximize aerobic work. For these reasons, the purpose of our study was to evaluate the repeatability and reliability of Fight Gone Bad (FGB) workout and to assess its relationship with aerobic fitness. Twenty-one cross-training participants (9 females) finished the study protocol which included three two-day measurement sessions separated by 10 days. During each session, participants had their body composition measured, and they performed two exercise tests. The first test was an incremental cycling test to measure aerobic fitness, and the second was a cross-training specific FGB workout performed the next day. Reliability and repeatability were calculated from the three measurements. The total FGB Score (FGB_TOTAL) showed excellent reliability (ICC 0.9, SEM 6%). Moreover, FGB_TOTAL was strongly correlated with aerobic fitness (i.e., time to exhaustion (T_exh, R² = 0.72), maximal workload (W_max, R² = 0.69), time to gas exchange threshold (T_GET, R² = 0.68), and peak oxygen uptake (VO_2peak, R² = 0.59). We also found that agreement between standardized FGB and standardized aerobic performance indices such as T_exh, VO_2peak, W_max, maximum heart rate, T_GET, and workload at gas exchange threshold was high by the Bland–Altman method. In conclusion, FGB is a reliable test that can be used in order to measure changes in cross-training performance caused by an intervention. Moreover, FGB is strongly correlated to aerobic fitness.

Betaine is used to lower elevated plasma homocysteine levels, which are a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). However, some studies have shown that betaine may have a negative effect on blood lipids. Betaine supplementation is becoming more and more common, but the relationship between betaine supplementation and blood lipoprotein levels are unclear. The purpose of the study described here was thus to perform a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials on the effects of betaine supplementation at a daily dose of at least 4 g on blood lipids in adults. Six randomized controlled trials published between 2002 and 2018 were identified. All six studies used adult participants supplemented with at least 4 g/d of betaine for six to twenty-four weeks. A meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model, and the overall effect size was calculated for changes in plasma total cholesterol (TC), HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides (TG). The pooled estimate of the effects of betaine supplementation compared to placebo on TC was 0.34 mmol/L (95% CI: 0.02, 0.65), p = 0.0352. No significant effect was observed for LDL, HDL, or TG. Supplementation with at least 4 g/d of betaine for a minimum of six weeks may moderately increase plasma TC, which might be important in the context of cardiovascular health.

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the impacts of a potential blood flow restriction (BFR)-betaine synergy on one-leg press performance, lactate concentrations, and exercise-associated biomarkers. Eighteen recreationally trained males (25 ± 5 y) were randomized to supplement 6 g/day of either betaine anhydrous (BET) or cellulose placebo (PLA) for 14 days. Subsequently, subjects performed four standardized sets of one-leg press and two additional sets to muscular failure on both legs (BFR [LL-BFR; 20% 1RM at 80% arterial occlusion pressure] and high-load [HL; 70% 1RM]). Toe-tip lactate concentrations were sampled before (PRE), as well as immediately (POST0), 30 min (POST30M), and 3 h (POST3H) post-exercise. Serum homocysteine (HCY), growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 concentrations were additionally assessed at PRE and POST30M. Analysis failed to detect any significant between-supplement differences for total repetitions completed. Baseline lactate changes (∆) were significantly elevated from POST0 to POST30 and from POST30 to POST3H (p < 0.05), whereby HL additionally demonstrated significantly higher ∆Lactate versus LL-BFR (p < 0.001) at POST3H. Although serum ∆GH was not significantly impacted by supplement or condition, serum ∆IGF-1 was significantly (p = 0.042) higher in BET versus PLA and serum ∆HCY was greater in HL relative to LL-BFR (p = 0.044). Although these data fail to support a BFR-betaine synergy, they otherwise support betaine’s anabolic potential.

Because betaine (BET) supplementation may improve muscular strength and endurance, it seems plausible that BET will also influence CrossFit performance (CF). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of three weeks of BET supplementation on body composition, CF performance, muscle power in the Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT), and the concentrations of selected hormones. The secondary aims were to analyze the effectiveness of two different BET doses (2.5 and 5.0 g/d) and their interaction with the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) genotype. The study was designed in a double-blinded randomized cross-over fashion. Forty-three CF practitioners completed the entire study. CF performance was measured using the Fight Gone Bad (FGB) workout and muscle power was evaluated in a 30-second WAnT. Body composition was determined by air-displacement plethysmography. Blood was drawn to assess hormone concentrations. The C677T single nucleotide polymorphism (rs180113) in the MTHFR gene was analyzed. FGB total improved with BET by 8.7 ± 13.6% (p < 0.001), but no significant changes were observed with placebo (– 0.4 ± 10.0%, p = 0.128). No changes were also observed in WAnT and body composition. After BET supplementation testosterone concentration increased by 7.0 ± 15.4% with BET (p = 0.046) (no change with placebo: 1.5 ± 19.6%, p = 0.884) but had no effect on concentrations of insulin-like growth factor or cortisol. Finally, there were no significant interactions between MTHFR genotype and BET dose in any outcome. BET supplementation may improve CF performance and increase testosterone concentration. However, there was no evidence of a difference between dosages (2.5 and 5.0 g/d) and MTHFR genotypes. The trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03702205) on 10 October 2018.