Physiological effects of regular CrossFit® training and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic—A systematic review

4Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

CrossFit® is a functional fitness training program known for its day-to-day varying “Workouts of the Day” (WOD). In accordance with the ‘CrossFit® Level 1 Training Guide’, regular CrossFit® training sessions consist of Warm-up, Mobility, Skill/Power training, WOD, and Cool-down. Despite the fast-growing and widespread popularity, data on the practical implementation of the training program based on scientific evidence are rare. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to systematically review the existing literature on the physiological effects of regular CrossFit® training in full extent instead of stand-alone WODs and to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the training behavior of CrossFit® athletes. A systematic search was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines in April 2022 and updated in July 2022 using the following databases: PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and Web of Science. Using the keyword “CrossFit”, 1,264 records were found. Based on the eligibility criteria, 12 studies are included and separated by topics: acute-short term physiological response (n = 8), and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 4). The results show that studies of regular training sessions were rarely conducted and contradicted the existing knowledge of the physiological demands [e.g., heart rate (HR)] of CrossFit®. In detail, included studies demonstrate that training sessions last 30–60 min and provide a progressive increase in cardiovascular load up to maximal effort activity (>90% HRmax), differing from stand-alone WODs exclusively at high-intensity. Also, scarce research exists on COVID-19-pandemic-induced effects on training behavior, and studies are of moderate to low quality. There is still a lack of comprehensive analyses on the acute physiological effects of regular training sessions and the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in the scientific literature. Moreover, the inconsistent terminology used in CrossFit® research complicates generalized conclusions. Therefore, future research on the training methodology of CrossFit® needs to overcome terminological inequalities and examine scientifically the implementation of the concept by considering regular training sessions under practical settings.

References Powered by Scopus

RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

16442Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration

8791Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

6069Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

CrossFit<sup>®</sup>: ‘Unknowable’ or Predictable?—A Systematic Review on Predictors of CrossFit<sup>®</sup> Performance

13Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Acute effect of high-intensity functional training (HIFT) using a benchmark on cognition and physiological parameters according to the competitive level

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Effects of Acute Citrulline Malate Supplementation on CrossFit<sup>®</sup> Exercise Performance: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Cross-Over Study

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Meier, N., Schlie, J., & Schmidt, A. (2023). Physiological effects of regular CrossFit® training and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic—A systematic review. Frontiers in Physiology. Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1146718

Readers over time

‘23‘24‘2506121824

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

50%

Researcher 3

30%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

10%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

10%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Sports and Recreations 5

50%

Medicine and Dentistry 2

20%

Nursing and Health Professions 2

20%

Decision Sciences 1

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0