Physiological Demands of a CrossFit® Class: A Comparison Between Athletes and Recreational Participants

Background: The increasing popularity of CrossFit® has resulted in a heterogeneous population ranging from recreational practitioners to athletes. However, most studies have examined isolated benchmark workouts or complete sessions without characterizing cardiorespiratory responses across different session phases or considering training level. Methods: Thirty-nine CrossFit® practitioners (19 athletes and 20 recreational practitioners) completed two evaluation sessions. Maximal cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed in the laboratory, followed by a standardized 60 min CrossFit® class consisting of a 25 min warm-up, the 20 min Cindy workout, and a 15 min cool-down. During Cindy, participants completed as many repetitions as possible, with scaled movements for recreational practitioners when necessary. Cardiorespiratory responses and energy expenditure (EE) were measured throughout the session using indirect calorimetry (K4b2, COSMED, Rome, Italy) and analyzed according to exercise phase. Results: Athletes completed more repetitions than recreational practitioners (females: 597 vs. 342; males: 731 vs. 396; p < 0.001) and exhibited higher maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max) (females: 40.3 vs. 31.5; males: 49.2 vs. 31.4 mL·kg−1·min−1; p < 0.001). Cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses increased from warm-up to Cindy and declined during cool-down. During Cindy, athletes demonstrated higher V˙O2peak (females: 34.3 vs. 30.3; males: 40.7 vs. 32.3 mL·kg−1·min−1, p < 0.001), EE and metabolic equivalents than recreational practitioners (p < 0.05). No statistically significant between-group differences were detected in peak heart rate. Conclusions: A standardized CrossFit® class imposes substantial cardiorespiratory and energy demands regardless of training level. Although athletes exhibited higher V˙O2max during Cindy, 30% of recreational practitioners performed a scaled version, so direct comparisons between groups are not possible under equivalent workload.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sports
Published
2026-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/sports14110493
Primary Topic
Sports Performance and Training
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Physiological Demands of a CrossFit® Class: A Comparison Between Athletes and Recreational Participants

Vítor Hugo Teixeira, José Carlos Ribeiro, Catarina L. Nunes, Manoel J. Rios et al.
Sports
Sports Performance and Training
article

Physiological Demands of a CrossFit® Class: A Comparison Between Athletes and Recreational Participants

Vítor Hugo Teixeira, José Carlos Ribeiro, Catarina L. Nunes, Manoel J. Rios, Catarina S. Augusto
article en

Abstract

Background: The increasing popularity of CrossFit® has resulted in a heterogeneous population ranging from recreational practitioners to athletes. However, most studies have examined isolated benchmark workouts or complete sessions without characterizing cardiorespiratory responses across different session phases or considering training level. Methods: Thirty-nine CrossFit® practitioners (19 athletes and 20 recreational practitioners) completed two evaluation sessions. Maximal cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed in the laboratory, followed by a standardized 60 min CrossFit® class consisting of a 25 min warm-up, the 20 min Cindy workout, and a 15 min cool-down. During Cindy, participants completed as many repetitions as possible, with scaled movements for recreational practitioners when necessary. Cardiorespiratory responses and energy expenditure (EE) were measured throughout the session using indirect calorimetry (K4b2, COSMED, Rome, Italy) and analyzed according to exercise phase. Results: Athletes completed more repetitions than recreational practitioners (females: 597 vs. 342; males: 731 vs. 396; p < 0.001) and exhibited higher maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max) (females: 40.3 vs. 31.5; males: 49.2 vs. 31.4 mL·kg−1·min−1; p < 0.001). Cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses increased from warm-up to Cindy and declined during cool-down. During Cindy, athletes demonstrated higher V˙O2peak (females: 34.3 vs. 30.3; males: 40.7 vs. 32.3 mL·kg−1·min−1, p < 0.001), EE and metabolic equivalents than recreational practitioners (p < 0.05). No statistically significant between-group differences were detected in peak heart rate. Conclusions: A standardized CrossFit® class imposes substantial cardiorespiratory and energy demands regardless of training level. Although athletes exhibited higher V˙O2max during Cindy, 30% of recreational practitioners performed a scaled version, so direct comparisons between groups are not possible under equivalent workload.

SportsVol. 14(11)
Universidade do Porto (PT), Atlântica Instituto Universitário (PT), Centro de Investigação em Actividade Física Saúde e Lazer (PT), INSIGHT - Piaget Research Center for Ecological Human Development (PT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Sports Performance and Training
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon