CrossFit is becoming increasingly popular as a method to increase fitness and as a competitive sport in both the Unites States and Europe. However, little research on this mode of exercise has been performed to date. The purpose of the present investigation involving experienced CrossFit athletes and naïve healthy young men was to investigate the relationship of aerobic capacity and anaerobic power to performance in two representative CrossFit workouts: the first workout was 12 minutes in duration, and the second was based on the total time to complete the prescribed exercise. The participants were 32 healthy adult males, who were either naïve to CrossFit exercise or had competed in CrossFit competitions. Linear regression was undertaken to predict performance on the first workout (time) with age, group (naïve or CrossFit athlete), VO2max and anaerobic power, which were all significant predictors (p < 0.05) in the model. The second workout (repetitions), when examined similarly using regression, only resulted in CrossFit experience as a significant predictor (p < 0.05). The results of the study suggest that a history of participation in CrossFit competition is a key component of performance in CrossFit workouts which are representative of those performed in CrossFit, and that, in at least one these workouts, aerobic capacity and anaerobic power are associated with success.

The present study investigated the effects of training combining elastic tension, free weights, and the bench press. Eleven college-aged men (untrained) in the bench press participated in the 13-week study. The participants were first given instructions and then practiced the bench press, followed by a one-repetition maximum (1RM) test of baseline strength. Subjects were then trained in the bench press for 3 weeks to allow for the beginning of neural adaptation. After another 1RM test, participants were assigned to 1 of 2 conditions for the next 3 weeks of training: 85% Free-Weight Tension, 15% Elastic Tension (BAND), or 100% Free-Weight Tension (STAND). After 3 weeks of training and a third 1RM max test, participants switched treatments, under which they completed the final 3 weeks of training and the fourth 1RM test. Analysis via analysis of covariance revealed a significant (p ≤ 0.05) main effect for time and interaction effect for Treatment (BAND vs. STAND). Subsequent analysis via paired-samples t-test revealed the BAND condition was significantly better (p = 0.05) at producing raw gains in 1RM strength. (BAND 9.95 ± 3.7 kg vs. STAND 7.56 ± 2.8 kg). These results suggest that the addition of elastic tension to the bench press may be an effective method of increasing strength.

No abstract

BackgroundErgogenic aides are widely used by fitness enthusiasts and athletes to increase performance. Alpha glycerylphosphorylcholine (A-GPC) has demonstrated some initial promise in changing explosive performance. The purpose of the present investigation was to determine if 6 days of supplementation with A-GPC would augment isometric force production compared to a placebo.MethodsThirteen college-aged males (Means ± SD; Age: 21.9 ± 2.2 years, Height: 180.3 ± 7.7 cm, Weight: 87.6 ± 15.6 kg; VO2 max: 40.08 ± 7.23 ml O2*Kg−1*min−1, Body Fat: 17.5 ± 4.6 %) gave written informed consent to participate in the study. The study was a double blind, placebo controlled, cross-over design. The participants reported to the lab for an initial visit where they were familiarized with the isometric mid thigh pull in a custom squat cage on a force platform and upper body isometric test against a high frequency load cell, and baseline measurements were taken for both. The participant then consumed either 600 mg per day of A-GPC or placebo and at the end of 6 days performed isometric mid thigh pulls and an upper body isometric test. A one-week washout period was used before the participants’ baseline was re-measured and crossed over to the other treatment.ResultsThe A-GPC treatment resulted in significantly greater isometric mid thigh pull peak force change from baseline (t = 1.76, p = 0.044) compared with placebo (A-GPC: 98.8. ± 236.9 N vs Placebo: −39.0 ± 170.9 N). For the upper body test the A-GPC treatment trended towards greater change from baseline force production (A-GPC: 50.9 ± 167.2 N Placebo: −14.9 ± 114.9 N) but failed to obtain statistical significance (t = 1.16, p = 0.127).ConclusionsA-GPC is effective at increasing lower body force production after 6 days of supplementation. Sport performance coaches can consider adding A-GPC to the diet of speed and power athletes to enhance muscle performance.

No abstract