The 2018 CrossFit Open (CFO) was the initial stage of an annual competition that consisted of five weekly workouts. Current evidence suggests that a variety of fitness parameters are important for progressing beyond this stage, but little is known about which are the most important. To examine relationships between CFO performance, experience, and physiological fitness, sixteen experienced (>2 years) athletes (30.7 ± 6.9 years, 171 ± 12 cm, 78.0 ± 16.2 kg) volunteered to provide information about their training and competitive history, and then complete a battery of physiological assessments prior to competing in the 2018 CFO. Athletes’ resting energy expenditure, hormone concentrations, body composition, muscle morphology, cardiorespiratory fitness, and isometric strength were assessed on two separate occasions. Spearman correlations demonstrated significant (p < 0.05) relationships between most variables and performance on each workout. Stepwise regression revealed competition experience (R2 = 0.31–0.63), body composition (R2 = 0.55–0.80), vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (R2 = 0.29–0.89), respiratory compensation threshold (R2 = 0.54–0.75), and rate of force development (R2 = 0.30–0.76) to be the most common predictors. Of these, body composition was the most important. These fitness parameters are known targets with established training recommendations. Though preliminary, athletes may use these data to effectively train for CFO competition.

To observe workout repetition and rest interval pacing strategies and determine which best predicted performance during the 2016 CrossFit® Open, five male (34.4 ± 3.8 years, 176 ± 5 cm, 80.3 ± 9.7 kg) and six female (35.2 ± 6.3 years, 158 ± 7 cm, 75.9 ± 19.3 kg) recreational competitors were recruited for this observational, pilot study. Exercise, round, and rest time were quantified via a stopwatch for all competitors on their first attempt of each of the five workouts. Subsequently, pacing was calculated as a repetition rate (repetitions·s-1) to determine the fastest, slowest, and average rate for each exercise, round, and rest interval, as well as how these changed (i.e., slope, Δ rate / round) across each workout. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients indicated that several pacing variables were significantly (p < 0.05) related to performance on each workout. However, stepwise regression analysis indicated that the average round rate best predicted (p < 0.001) performance on the first (R2 = 0.89), second (R2 = 0.99), and fifth (R2 = 0.94) workouts, while the competitors’ rate on their slowest round best predicted workout three performance (R2 = 0.94, p < 0.001). The wall ball completion rate (R2 = 0.89, p = 0.002) was the best predictor of workout four performance, which was improved by 9.8% with the inclusion of the deadlift completion rate. These data suggest that when CrossFit® Open workouts consist of multiple rounds, competitors should employ a fast and sustainable pace to improve performance. Otherwise, focusing on one or two key exercises may be the best approach.