Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Knowledge Repository @ IUP
Theses and Dissertations
8-2013
A Comparison of Crossfit Training to Traditional
Anaerobic Resistance Training in Terms of Selected
Fitness Domains Representative of Overall Athletic
Performance
Hayden D. Gerhart
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Follow this and additional works at: http://knowledge.library.iup.edu/etd
Recommended Citation
Gerhart, Hayden D., "A Comparison of Crossfit Training to Traditional Anaerobic Resistance Training in Terms of Selected Fitness
Domains Representative of Overall Athletic Performance" (2013). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1175.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Knowledge Repository @ IUP. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations
by an authorized administrator of Knowledge Repository @ IUP. For more information, please contact [email protected].
A COMPARISON OF CROSSFIT TRAINING TO TRADITIONAL ANAEROBIC
RESISTANCE TRAINING IN TERMS OF SELECTED FITNESS DOMAINS
REPRESENTATIVE OF OVERALL ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE
A Thesis
Submitted to the
School of Graduate Studies and Research
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
Hayden D. Gerhart
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
August 2013
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Health and Physical Education
We hereby approve the thesis of
Hayden D. Gerhart
Candidate for the degree of Master of Science
Madeline Paternostro Bayles, Ph.D.
Professor of Health and Physical Education, Advisor
Robert Alman II, Ed.D.
Assistant Professor of Health and Physical Education
David Lorenzi, Ed.D.
Associate Professor of Health and Physical Education
Mark Sloniger, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Health and Physical Education
ACCEPTED
Timothy P. Mack, Ph.D.
Dean
School of Graduate Studies and Research
ii
Title: A Comparison of CrossFit Training to Traditional Anaerobic Resistance Training
in Terms of Selected Fitness Domains Representative of Overall Athletic
Performance
Author: Hayden D. Gerhart
Thesis Chair: Dr. Madeline Paternostro Bayles
Thesis Committee Members: Dr. Mark Sloniger
Dr. Robert Alman II
Dr. David Lorenzi
The purpose of this study was to observe and gather information regarding overall
athletic performance in two different groups of exercisers. The two groups were CrossFit
exercisers (CF) and traditional anaerobic resistance exercisers (TAR). The study is crosssectional in nature, with various observations being required for data collection. Data was
collected via a simple field test including measurement of performance in seven domains
of fitness representative of overall athletic performance. The domains of fitness include
body composition, flexibility, aerobic capacity, maximum strength, agility, maximum
power, and muscular endurance. The sample size includes 19 participants in each group.
All subjects are males, for the sake of maintaining a completely homogenous sample. All
participants self-reported their volume and type of exercise. They were required to fall
within the range of 5-6 days/week of 45-60min. This comes out to 240-300 minutes per
week of exercise sessions of moderate-vigorous activity (both in CF and TAR). Data was
analyzed using multiple regression, and among each group through the use of
independent T-tests and Chi-Square Analysis.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost I would like to thank my family. My parents, Paul and Lori
Gerhart, have supported me in all walks of my life, especially my academic pursuits. They
have always been a source of great encouragement and guidance in my life. They are two of
the best role models in the world, and they make me feel extremely blessed on a daily basis. I
could work an entire lifetime and still not even come close to ever repaying my parents for
everything they have done for me. I would also like to thank my sister and her husband, Amy
and Joe Dullinger. The two of them are a humongous influence in my life, and I aspire to
impact the lives of others in the way they have impacted mine. They have blessed me with
two beautiful nieces, Claire and Adalynn, and I feel very lucky to have them in my life.
Thank you all so much, I am truly thankful for your never ending love and support.
Next I would like to thank all of the off-campus facilities and owners that allowed me
to come in and collect data, sometimes on very short notice; CrossFit Akron, CrossFit 717,
and Sports Evolution. I also want to thank all of the participants in my study for giving their
best effort and volunteering their time. Thank you all so very much.
Next I would like to thank the members of my thesis committee, Dr. Mark Sloniger,
Dr. Robert Alman, Dr. David Lorenzi, Ms. Stenger, and especially my advisor, Dr. Madeline
Bayles. I have been very fortunate to have grown extremely close to all of the professors on
my committee, and I appreciate all of the support and encouragement they have given me
over this past year.
Finally I would like to dedicate this entire thesis to my grandfather, Reverend Mervin
Gerhart, who recently passed away on March 3, 2013. My grandfather was a great family
man, and the love he shared for his faith and family was second to none. I’ll never forget
some of his stories and some of the silly times we shared together. I feel very lucky to have
had him in my life. I love you and miss you, Grandpa.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I
Page
INTRODUCTION….……………………………………………………………..1
Research Question…………………………………….……………………..……4
Statement of the Problem………………………………………..………………...4
Hypothesis…………………………………………………………….…………...5
Definition of Terms……………………………………………………...………...5
Assumptions………………………………………………………………..……...7
Limitations………………………………………………………………………...7
Significance………………………………………………………………………..8
II
LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………..……………10
Benefits of Aerobic Training…………………………………………………….11
Benefits of Traditional Anaerobic Resistance (TAR) Training……….…………12
Aerobic Training – Background………………………………………….……...13
TAR Training – Background…………………………………………..………...15
Types of TAR Training……………………………………………………..……16
CrossFit (CF) Training…………………………………………………………...18
III
METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………..…..21
Subject Characteristics…………………………………………………………...21
Inclusion Criteria………………………………………………………………...21
Exclusion Criteria………………………………………………………………..22
Recruitment……………………………………………………………………....23
Procedures………………………………………………………………………..23
Data Collection…………………………………………………………………..24
Instruments……………………………………………………………………….33
Analysis/Statistics………………………………………………………………..32
Timeline………………………………………………………………………….33
Confidentiality…………………………………………………………………...33
IV
RESULTS………………………………………………………………………..34
Subject Demographics…………………………………………………………...34
Statistical Analysis……………………………………………………………….45
Hypothesis I……………………………………………………………………...45
Hypothesis II……………………………………………………………………..52
V
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION……………………………………………..…...54
Summary/Discussion…………………………………………………………….54
Future Implications/Direction of Research………………………………………59
v
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….61
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..63
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………...68
Appendix A: Data Collection Sheet……………………………………………...68
Appendix B: Informed Consent………………………………………………….70
Appendix C: Demographic Survey………………………………………………73
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1: Subject Demographics………………………………………………………………...34
2: Age Comparison Between TAR and CF Participants…………………………………35
3: Height Comparison Between TAR and CF Participants……………………………...35
4: Weight Comparison Between TAR and CF Participants……………………………...36
5: Frequency of Training – TAR Group ……………………………………...…………36
6: Frequency of Training – CF Group…………………………………………...............37
7: Comparison of Means Between Groups – Frequency of Training……………………37
8: Training Session Length – TAR Group……………………………………………….38
9: Training Session Length – CF Group………………………………………................39
10: Comparison of Means Between Groups – Session Duration ………………...……...39
11: Weekly Volume of Exercise – TAR Group………………………………………….40
12: Weekly Volume of Exercise – CF Group…………………………………................41
13: Comparison of Means Between Groups – Volume of Exercise……………………..41
14: Moderate-Vigorous Activity Level…………………………………………………..42
15: Comparison of Means Between Groups – Moderate-Vigorous Activity……………43
16: Length of Time of Consecutive Training – Crosstabulation………………………...44
17: Strength of a Covariate (Experience12)……………………………………………...45
18: Field Test Group Data ……………………………………………………………….46
19: Comparison of Means Between Groups– Body Composition……………………….47
20: Comparison of Means Between Groups – Flexibility……………………………….47
21: Comparison of Means Between Groups – Aerobic Capacity………………………..48
vii
22: Comparison of Means Between Groups – Maximum Strength……………………...49
23: Comparison of Means Between Groups – Agility…………………………………...50
24: Comparison of Means Between Groups – Maximum Power………………………..51
25: Comparison of Means – Muscular Endurance………………………………….........51
26: Comparison of Means Between Groups – Field Test Data………………………….52
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1: Chest site………………………………………………………………………….…...26
2: Abdomen site……………………………………………………………………..…...26
3: Thigh site………………………………………………………………………….…..26
4: Sit-and-reach test……………………………………………………………….……..27
5: Queens College three-minute step test………………………………………...………28
6: Deadlift………………………………………………………………………….…….30
7: Pro-agility test…………………………………………………………………………30
8: Standing long jump……………………………………………………………………31
9: Pushup test………………………………………………………………………….…32
10: Effect of training experience on maximum strength…………………….…………..58
ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Athletic performance and enhancement of strength is highly dependent on a
variety of different training variables including intensity, modality, volume, tempo,
frequency, and rest. These variables are manipulated by health and fitness professionals
on an individual basis with the intention of creating the ideal presentation of an exercise
program, which involves either aerobic conditioning (training requiring the use of
oxygen), anaerobic conditioning (training not requiring the use of oxygen), or some
combination of the two.
The benefits of Traditional Anaerobic Resistance (TAR) training are widely
understood and accepted by a variety of health professionals and organizations, such as
the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) as well as the National Strength and
Conditioning Association (NSCA). TAR training consists of high-intensity, intermittent
bouts of exercise such as weight training, plyometrics, and speed, agility, and interval
training (NSCA, 2008). The physiological and performance-based benefits of TAR
training are largely known and specific to individualized program designs. Some of these
benefits include muscular strength, power, hypertrophy, muscular endurance, as well as
motor skill performance (NSCA, 2008). TAR programs are implemented with these
specific physiological benefits in mind.
Like resistance training, aerobic conditioning has been highly researched and the
benefits show a marked reduction in a variety of cardiovascular risk factors, such as
obesity, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), as well as percentage of body fat
(Chaudhary, 2010). Aerobic conditioning involves training the cardiovascular system and
1
improving the function of the heart. Typical aerobic exercise could involve running,
rowing, biking or swimming, just to give a few examples. The most largely known and
researched benefit to aerobic conditioning is improvement in oxygen uptake. Maximal
oxygen uptake (VO2) is described as the maximal amount of oxygen that can be used at
the cellular level for the entire body (NSCA, 2008). The benefits of aerobic conditioning
are supported by a substantial amount of literature, and highly reputable sources such as
the American College of Sports Medicine. Benefits include reduction in risk of
cardiovascular disease, weight loss, decrease in likelihood of developing various chronic
diseases such as diabetes mellitus and the metabolic syndrome, as well as controlling
cholesterol and blood pressure levels (ACSM GETP, 2013).
While the benefits of anaerobic and aerobic training have been thoroughly
evaluated, the benefits of CrossFit (CF) training have not. CF combines the principles
associated with both TAR as well as aerobic training. The CF concept aims to prepare
people for the unknown by training with “constantly varied, high intensity, functional
movement (CrossFit Training Guide, 2010).” The workout design is focused around 10
domains of fitness. The 10 domains include cardiovascular and respiratory endurance,
stamina, strength, flexibility, power, speed, coordination, agility, balance and accuracy.
In these 10 domains, it is evident that CF training involves a combination of resistance
training as well as cardiovascular endurance training. These domains of fitness are
similar to those domains of fitness defined by the NSCA; maximum muscular strength,
maximum muscular power, muscular endurance, anaerobic capacity, aerobic capacity,
agility, speed, body composition, flexibility, and anthropometry (NSCA, 2008). Due to
the similarity between fitness domains defined by CF as well as the NSCA, the
2
overlapping fitness domains (flexibility, aerobic capacity, maximum strength, agility,
maximum power, and muscular endurance or stamina) with the addition of body
composition, will be the variables under observation for measurement of overall athletic
performance in this study.
The ultimate goal of CF is to produce the maximum functionality that is possible
for a specific individual. “World-Class Fitness in 100 Words” is defined by the Greg
Glassmen, creator of CrossFit, in the CrossFit Training Guide (2010) as follows:
“Eat meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch and no sugar. Keep
intake to levels that will support exercise but not body fat. Practice and train major
lifts: Deadlift, clean, squat, presses, clean and jerk, and snatch. Similarly, master the
basics of gymnastics: pull-ups, dips, rope climbs, push-ups, presses to handstand,
pirouettes, flips, splints, and holds. Bike, run, swim, row, etc, hard and fast. Five or
six days per week mix these elements in as many combinations and patterns as
creativity will allow. Routine is the enemy. Keep workouts short and intense.
Regularly learn and play new sports.”
The proposed definition of “world-class fitness” suggests that the exercise routines in
CF are constantly varied, and randomized with maximum functionality as the primary goal.
This study will compare overall athletic performance of current exercisers
participating in CF with the overall athletic performance of current exercisers adhering to
240-300 minutes per week of TAR exercise of moderate-vigorous intensity (equivalent to
4-5 days per week of anaerobic exercise sessions lasting 60 minutes in duration). For the
purpose of this study, moderate-vigorous intensity will be defined as follows: moderate
3
intensity = noticeably increased heart rate and breathing. Vigorous intensity =
substantially increased heart rate and breathing (ACSM GETP, 2013). The fitness
domains as defined by CF and the NSCA, and common to both, will be evaluated in this
proposed study. There is very limited literature comparing CF training to any other type
of training. This study will be the first to compare overall athletic performance of CF
training individuals with individuals who train with TAR methods. “Traditional,” in this
case, refers to specific program variables such as intensity, modality, volume, tempo,
frequency, and rest that are manipulated in a much more structured format as compared
to the randomness and intensity in the structure and presentation of CF training.
Research Question
How does overall athletic performance in 7 domains of fitness common to both
CrossFit and the NSCA (body composition, flexibility, aerobic capacity, maximum
strength, agility, maximum power, and muscular endurance) differ between CrossFit
exercisers and traditional anaerobic resistance exercisers?
Statement of the Problem
CF training claims to prescribe exercise in the most effective manner for
maximizing overall athletic performance and health. On the other hand, strength and
conditioning professionals typically prescribe a more TAR exercise program with similar
intentions of improving performance and health. Claims made by CF professionals have
very little support scientifically, and there are very few, if any studies that compare
outcomes in CF trained individuals as compared to TAR training. This has led many
professionals to question the methodology and effectiveness of CF training. This study
will examine the level of performance in 7 domains of fitness between CF and TAR
4
individuals. The seven domains of fitness include body composition, flexibility, aerobic
capacity, maximum strength, agility, maximum power, and muscular endurance. The goal
of this study is to compare the differences in overall athletic performance between these
two different training styles, with the intention of producing overall athletic performance.
Comparisons will be made among and between both groups of participants.
Hypothesis
1. The CrossFit (CF) training group will show significantly higher performance than
the Traditional Anaerobic Resistance (TAR) group in all 7 tested fitness domains
with the exception of maximum strength (one-repetition maximum deadlift).
2. There will be no significant difference in the performance of maximum strength
between the CF group and TAR group.
Definition of Terms
1. Traditional Anaerobic Resistance (TAR) Training – Scientifically supported
methodology with physiological benefits are well-known and researched with a
focus on strength and/or the improvement of a single domain of fitness; i.e.
hypertophy, endurance, and power.
2. Aerobic Training – Energy systems used rely heavy on the use of oxygen for
performance. Involves training the cardiovascular system and improving the
function of the heart, typically longer in duration with high emphasis on
continuous, high-volume exercise.
3. CrossFit (CF) Training – “Constantly varied, high intensity, functional
movement.” A newly developed type of resistance training focusing on the
improvement of various domains simultaneously. Combines the principles
5
associated with both traditional resistance training as well as aerobic training.
Typically combines Olympic weightlifting, aerobic training and body weight
resistance exercises. Physiological benefits are not largely researched.
4. ACSM GETP – American College of Sports Medicine’s Guidelines for Exercise
Testing and Prescription, 2013.
5. ACSM HRPFAM – American College of Sports Medicine’s Health-Related
Physical Fitness Assessment Manual, 2010.
6. VO2 Max – Maximal rate of oxygen consumption during exercise. Typically
accepted as a measure of overall health and fitness.
7. Skinfold Measurement – Measurement of body composition. For purposes of this
study, the three sites at the chest, abdomen and thigh will be used.
8. Sit-and-Reach – Measurement of flexibility performed in the seated position. This
test measures the flexibility of the hip and lower back.
9. Queens College 3-minute Step Test – Measurement of aerobic capacity. Uses a
submaximal test to predict aerobic capacity based on a final heart rate.
10. Deadlift – Measure of maximal strength. The load of the bar is placed on the
floor. The participant will grip the bar with hips and knees flexed, elbows fully
extended. Range of motion involves one continuous motion of hip and knee
extension, elbows remaining fully extended throughout the movement. The lift is
finished by returning the load to the floor in the same manner.
11. One-repetition Maximum lift – Measure of maximal strength performance.
Highest load of weight lifted safely and effectively for 1 repetition.
12. Pro Agility Test – Measurement of agility. Also known as a “20 yard shuttle run.”
6
13. Standing Long Jump – Measurement of maximum power.
14. Push-up Test – Measurement of muscular endurance, performed until failure.
15. Functional Training – multi-joint, multi-planar movements that mimic daily
activities used to improve overall health, athleticism, and quality of life.
Assumptions
1. Physical Activity is reported accurately in terms of type, duration, intensity,
and experience level by all participants on the demographic handout.
2. All participants are physically able to perform all aspects of the field test.
3. Participants did not use performance-enhancing and/or thermogenic
supplementation.
Limitations
1. The placement into either of the two groups is based on self-report rather than
practical application of the movements.
2. The convenience of travel may limit the number of participants.
3. The required range of exercise for inclusion is narrow in both groups, and
thus, may limit sample size.
4. Data collection at off-site facilities required manipulation of space and time
around group fitness classes, causing desirable order of domains in the field
test to be altered in order to accommodate space and availability of
equipment. This modified order was then maintained at all sites of data
collection.
5. Lifting straps, which can provide support while attempting to lift heavy loads,
were prohibited in this study.
7
6. The sit-and-reach measured lower back and hamstring flexibility, rather than
flexibility of any area of the upper body.
7. The deadlift measured the strength of the lower back, hamstrings, and
quadriceps muscles. No measure of upper body strength was measured.
8. No pre-testing measurements were taken for either group.
9. There was no control for aerobic activity level outside of self-reported data.
Significance
The improvement in athletic performance is highly dependent on a variety of
different training variables; some of which include intensity, modality, volume, tempo,
frequency, and rest. These variables are typically manipulated by strength and
conditioning professionals in a traditional anaerobic resistance (TAR) presentation of
exercise with the intention of creating the ideal program for clients and/or athletes. The
physiological benefits of TAR training as well as aerobic training are well known, and
program designs are implemented with specific physiological benefits in mind, such as
improved physical function, body composition, and of course improved muscular
strength (Straight, 2012).
On the other hand, the benefits of CrossFit (CF) training are largely
undocumented. The CF prescription is “constantly varied, high intensity, functional
movement (CrossFit Training Guide, 2010).” The workout design is focused around 10
important domains of fitness. The 10 domains of focus for CF training include
cardiovascular and respiratory endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility, power, speed,
coordination, agility, balance and accuracy. These 10 domains of fitness mirror the 10
domains of fitness as defined by the NSCA nearly perfectly, with the exception of
8
anaerobic capacity, body composition, and girth measurements. These domains represent
all the major fitness domains associated with performance and health. By evaluating
these domains and comparing the results between groups, it will become evident which
training strategy is more efficient at producing overall athletic performance.
This study will contribute to the field of health and fitness, specifically in terms
overall muscular strength and conditioning performance. There is limited published and
refereed literature comparing CF training with other types of exercise programming. This
study will examine the effectiveness of CF training and possibly provide insight to fitness
professionals/athletes/recreational exercisers across the country in terms of properly
structuring exercise programs with the goal of maximizing overall athletic performance.
9
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
TAR and aerobic training modalities are both commonly used by strength and
conditioning professionals to maximize performance and health benefits. The benefits of
anaerobic and aerobic training have been demonstrated in a variety of different
populations, ranging from overweight smokers to inactive children. The benefits of CF
training, on the other hand, are largely unknown. CF training involves various modalities
of training presented simultaneously through manipulation of intensity, volume, tempo,
frequency and load, among other variables. The aim of CF training is to provide a broad,
general, inclusive level of fitness across a variety of fitness domains. These fitness
domains include cardiovascular and respiratory endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility,
power, speed, coordination, agility, balance and accuracy (CrossFit Training Guide,
2010). Similarly, the NSCA places a high importance on a slightly different list of fitness
domains. These domains include anaerobic and aerobic capacity, strength, power,
muscular endurance, agility, speed, flexibility, body composition and anthropometry
(NSCA, 2008). The similarities between these fitness domains are clear. The overlapping
domains between CF and the NSCA include flexibility, aerobic capacity (cardiovascular
endurance), maximum strength, agility, power and muscular endurance (stamina). These
domains, along with the addition of measurements of body composition, were coupled
together to comprise the battery involved in this study, assessing the overall athletic
abilities of each participant.
10
Benefits of Aerobic Training
Aerobic training physiologically improves the function of the heart through
consistent training. Performance based improvements include better endurance for longer
distances and periods of time. The improvement of VO2 max is the ultimate goal of
aerobic training (ACSM GETP, 2013).
The health benefits associated with aerobic training are vast, and linked to a
reduction in nearly all cardiovascular-related diseases (Dalleck, 2008). Some of the
benefits of aerobic training include reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease, weight
loss, decrease in likelihood of developing various chronic diseases such as diabetes
mellitus and the metabolic syndrome, as well as controlling cholesterol and blood
pressure level (ACSM GETP, 2013). Aerobic training will improve VO2 max levels,
which means the client/athlete’s cardiovascular system will utilize oxygen more
efficiently during exercise. This is thought to be the gold standard of overall fitness levels
among athletes and exercisers.
As previously discussed, aerobic exercise can also lead to improved quality of
life, higher cognitive functioning, and a better perception of overall health status. Motor
function can also improve due to the implementation of an aerobic training program. In a
study conducted on 10 elderly individuals, an 8-week intervention of aerobic exercise (3
days per week) consisting of calisthenics, biking, and walking showed marked
improvement in motor functioning (Bakken, 2001). A finger movement tracking test was
used to analyze the improvements of motor functioning. The results showed that motor
functioning could be positively effected due to the intervention of an aerobic training
program (Bakken, 2001).
11
Benefits of Traditional Anaerobic Resistance (TAR) Training
Traditional anaerobic resistance (TAR) training leads to improvement in nearly all
fitness domains discussed previously and defined by the NSCA as well as CrossFit (CF).
Maximum strength is improved through low speed movements of isolated muscle groups,
quantified by amount of weight lifted (NSCA, 2008). Power can also be improved
through TAR training. Power is the ability of a muscle to exert high force while
contracting at a high speed (NSCA, 2008). Through the constant application of quick
short bursts of energy applied to a muscle group, power can be improved over time.
Muscular endurance can also be improved through anaerobic training. Unlike power,
endurance consists of a single muscle group contracting repeatedly against submaximal
resistance (NSCA, 2008).
Agility and speed are also affected by continuous anaerobic training. Agility is the
ability to stop, start, and change direction rapidly and in a controlled manner (NSCA,
2008). Testing agility periodically is an important part of TAR training and involves
similar metabolic pathways as muscular strength and endurance, depending on the
duration of activity and intensity of agility exercises, which are typically performed
anaerobically. Speed is typically quantified as the time taken to cover a distance (NSCA,
2008). Tests of speed are typically performed at or under the distance of 200 meters in
terms of anaerobic training (NSCA, 2008).
TAR exercise leads to improvement in physiological benefits. Some of these
benefits will be discussed in more detail with specificity regarding type and modality of
resistance training. One important benefit is improved strength. When placing a
12
resistance on a muscle, and allowing it to fully recover, the capacity for strength increases
as this resistance is continuously applied and increased over time (Kilgore, 2010).
Other benefits of TAR training include an increase in overall functional fitness.
Certain types of TAR training are designed to specifically work the muscular as well as
cardiovascular system with total body movements (Crawford, 2011). These specific types
of movements and exercises (which will be discussed in further detail) are also great at
enhancing muscular awareness and overall proprioception due to the nature of the
compound joint movement involved in functional movements (Crawford, 2011).
TAR training can also prove to benefit younger, overweight and obese children.
In a randomized controlled trial involving an 8-week (twice per week) resistance training
program, variables such as waist circumference, body fat, muscular strength,
cardiorespiratory fitness, and insulin resistance were all significantly improved compared
to a control group (Benson, 2008). These results show that a resistance program can be
effective at reducing cardiovascular, metabolic, and pulmonary risk factors in young kids,
which may in turn keep this population from growing up and developing chronic diseases
in adulthood.
Aerobic Training - Background
The ACSM GETP recommends a minimum of 3-5 days per week of a
combination of moderate and vigorous aerobic physical activity; if all activity is vigorous
in nature, a minimum of 3 days is recommended; if all activity is moderate in nature, a
minimum of 5 days per week is recommended. Moderate activity is defined as noticeably
increased heart rate and breathing, while vigorous activity is defined by substantially
increased heart rate and breathing (ACSM GETP, 2013).
13
Aerobic training is typically measured by VO2, or “maximal rate of oxygen
consumption during exercise” (Dalleck, 2008). Aerobic, in fact, is defined as exercise
using oxygen. VO2 max is typically associated with overall health of an individual,
which emphasizes the importance of training one’s cardiorespiratory endurance. Strength
and conditioning professionals incorporate aerobic training into the programs of many
clients/athletes in order to produce the best overall fitness, and also to improve overall
health and reduce cardiovascular risk factors. Studies have consistently demonstrated an
inverse relationship between VO2max values and risk of cardiovascular disease and allcause mortality (Dalleck, 2008).
Aerobic training also involves conditioning of the heart and cardiovascular
system. A minimum of 60 minutes, but most likely 80-90 minutes of moderate-intensity
aerobic physical activity per day may be needed to avoid or limit weight regain and to
prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases in formerly overweight or obese individuals
(Chaudhary, 2010). Not only does aerobic training improve risk factors associated with
cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases, but active participation in a regular aerobic
exercise routine has been shown to improve overall perception of health as well as
cognitive functioning (Chan, 2012). Depending on the goals of the client, aerobic training
may or may not have a high emphasis, but it is important to never neglect aerobic training
due to the nature of the positive physiological and psychological effects on the body (as
discussed later).
VO2 max is often considered the most valid criterion reference measure of a
person’s cardiorespiratory fitness level. Since testing for VO2 max is not very practical,
for the purposes of this study, aerobic capacity is measured submaximally in the form of
14
a step test. This test uses validated and reliable measures to predict the maximal rate of
oxygen consumption (VO2 max) based on the heart rate recorded at the end of the test
(ACSM GETP, 2013).
TAR Training - Background
TAR training is the maximal rate of energy production by the combined
phosphate and lactic acid energy systems for physical activity (NSCA, 2008). It is
recommended in the ACSM GETP that one should participate in at least 2-3 days per
week of muscular strength/endurance training is recommended (ACSM GETP, 2013). As
explained by Kilgore in his article titled “Adaptation for Fitness,” resistance to the body
is simply defined as an external stress placed on the body which has not yet been
experienced (Kilgore, 2010). In other words, TAR training involves moving the body
against a stressor in various ways, through manipulation of different variables such as
type, frequency, volume, and rest. It is understood that in order to increase strength and
overall fitness, there must be a progression with resistance to the body (Kilgore, 2010).
The production of power, muscular strength and endurance, and hypertrophy are the main
objectives for a successful resistance program. Other benefits such as improved peak
running speed, increased performance of activities of daily living, higher quality of life,
improved cognitive function, as well as increased effectiveness of motor recruitment
patterns associated with resistance training are widely researched and supported with
literature. One example is research conducted by Straight et. al, who concluded that
interventions of resistance training improve body composition, muscular strength, and
overall physical function in adults (Straight, 2012). The ACSM GETP explains TAR
training as the programmed manipulation of training protocols such as the training
15
modality, repetition duration, range of repetitions, number of sets, and frequency of
training will differentially affect specific physiological adaptations such as muscular
strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance (ACSM GETP, 2013). Through the
manipulation of exercise variables and stress placed on the body, it is expected that
strength professionals can create an effective program design to achieve maximal
strength production (NSCA, 2008).
Types of TAR Training
The manipulation of different variables associated with exercise has created many
different types and styles of TAR training. One style of training is referred to as high
intensity interval training (HIIT). HIIT is typically defined as exercise at a heart rate
between 85-100% of maximum heart rate (Hamilton, 2006). This loose definition allows
strength and conditioning professionals the freedom to create any style of exercise
program that qualifies as long as it is performed at least at 85-100% of maximum heart
rate. Consequently, there are a many different styles of training that may fit into the
domain of “high intensity.” By manipulating work- and rest-periods in an exercise
session, it is possible to create a program centered around interval training, which can
also be high intensity. With a large volume or load of work as well as a shortened rest
period, it is possible to perform exercise at a heart rate which classifies the exercise into
high intensity. The benefits of high intensity interval training are vast. In a study
conducted on competitive distance runners aged 17-40 years old, performance was
measured by the following variables; peak running speed, running speed at 4mm lactate,
running speed at a fixed heart rate, fixed heart rate for the above, predicted 800m time,
predicted 1500m time, 5km time, as well as thigh cross-sectional area (Hamilton, 2006).
16
All of these variables were found to significantly improve after a 5-7 week high intensity
resistance training period, with the exception of running speed at a fixed heart rate
(Hamilton, 2006).
Not only is high intensity interval training beneficial to athletes and competitive
exercisers, but it is also beneficial for recreational exercisers. For example, in a study
conducted on women over the age of 65 years old, researchers found significant
physiological and cognitive improvements in a group who engaged in strength training
compared to a group who participated in calisthenics (Carral, 2007). Activities of daily
living, quality of life, cognitive function, and overall strength were all variables which
significantly improved as a result of intervening with high intensity resistance exercise in
this population (Carral, 2007). This shows the impact that TAR training can have on
different physiological functions of the body.
Another form of TAR training is Olympic lifting. Olympic lifting involves
exercises such as the snatch and the clean and jerk. Olympic lifting is unique in its ability
to develop an athlete’s explosive power, control of external objects, and mastery of motor
recruitment patterns (CrossFit Training Guide, 2010). The style of CF training also
involves a heavy focus in the realm of Olympic lifting (as will be discussed). In a study
conducted on experienced junior weight lifters, these lifts were the source of data
collection. With regard to low-, medium-, or high-volume exercise, it was found that a
moderate-volume of exercise (with regard to Olympic lifting) is a more desirable
program for improving muscular strength and power performance in a 4-5 week
intervention (Gonzalez-Badillo, 2005).
17
Kettlebell training, another form of resistance training, is growing in popularity in
the United States since its implementation into sport and physical activity in Eastern
Europe in the 1940’s (Crawford, 2011). Kettlebell training is specifically designed to be a
full body functional workout. Kettlebell training has been proven to increase strength,
endurance, agility and balance by using both the muscular and cardiovascular systems.
Many people are choosing to exercise with kettlebells over dumbbells due to the nature of
the functional movements associated with kettlebells. Kettlebells typically involve far
more than just one muscle group, while dumbbells are typically isolating only one muscle
group in a single plane of motion. Kettlebells recruit multiple muscle groups to perform
exercises that are directly applicable to sport and human movement (Crawford, 2011).
TAR training has many forms, dependent on the manipulation of different
scientifically researched exercise variables, such as load, intensity, frequency, volume,
rest, etc. The manipulation of these variables is highly researched and the physiological
as well as cognitive benefits are supported in recent literature.
CrossFit (CF) Training
CF training is a new style of training which combines both anaerobic training as
well as aerobic training. Different variables of fitness, such as intensity, modality, tempo,
volume and frequency are manipulated into different types of exercises and workouts to
maximize benefits in conditioning and performance. There is little research supporting
the claims of CrossFit training, or even providing any insight to the long-term
physiological and cognitive benefits of this style of training. In a similar Master’s Thesis
conducted by Christine Jeffrey at Arkansas State University, a statistically significant
difference was found between CrossFit exercisers and a control group (adhering to the
18
ACSM guidelines for physical fitness) in terms of power, measured by the Margaria
Kalamen Power Test (Jeffrey, 2012). Other variables tested in this study, anaerobic capacity
and aerobic capacity in the form of an anaerobic step test and a Cooper 1.5 mile run, yielded
no statistical significance between groups (Jeffrey, 2012).
CF was developed in 1995 by Greg Glassman and has only been getting
widespread exposure since 2007, when CF started holding annual international
competitions. Since this exposure, CF training has been rapidly growing across the world.
This study will compare the overall athletic performance of CF training exercisers with
the performance of purely anaerobic exercisers. This type of comparison has yet to be
evaluated. CF training involves so many modalities and manipulations of exercise
variables; it is difficult to compare training volumes of other like programs. The CrossFit
Level 1 Certificate Training Guide defines CrossFit as…
“…a core strength and conditioning program. We have designed our program to elicit as
broad an adaptation response as possible. CrossFit is not a specialized fitness program but
a deliberate attempt to optimize physical competence in each of ten recognized fitness
domains. They are Cardiovascular and Respiratory endurance, Stamina, Strength,
Flexibility, Power, Speed, Coordination, Agility, Balance, and Accuracy.”
In an article written by Dr. Lon Kilgore of Midwestern State University, the CF
training definition of physical fitness is as follows: “Possession of adequate levels of
strength, endurance, and mobility to provide for successful participation in occupational
effort, recreational pursuits, familial obligation, and that is consistent with a functional
phenotypic expression of the human genotype (Kilgore, 2007).”
19
The benefits associated with CF training have not yet been evaluated. Some longterm benefits are typically discussed in relation to excessively high performance in any
single fitness domain compared to other domains. If an exerciser or athlete trains at an
elite level in one of the ten domains defined by CF, then they have done so at the expense
of improvement in other domains of fitness. CF training makes the claim that elite
strength and conditioning is a balanced compromise between each of the ten physical
adaptations (CrossFit Training Guide, 2010). This idea may conflict with the training
styles of many recreational exercisers. Producing maximal strength, for example, would
be thought of as an unbalanced compromise in other areas of fitness. The question of
whether or not CF training is the best style of training for maximizing overall athletic
performance in all domains of fitness has not yet been answered. Therefore, the goal of
this study is to examine whether or not CF training actually does produce greater overall
athletic performance than those who strictly train and/or exercise within the TAR
constraints of this study.
20
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Subject Characteristics
The participants in this study were all males, age range of 18-29 years.
Participants were gathered from a largely diverse pool of races/ethnicities. A total of 38
participants were recruited for this study. Half of those recruited were current CF trained
exercisers, and half were participants who self-reported TAR training, adhering to 4-5
days/week of moderate to vigorous exercise sessions 60 minutes in duration; a total
exercise volume of 240-300 minutes/week. Both groups of participants self-reported
similar exercise volume and intensity for inclusion. For the CF training group, this type
of exercise was strictly limited to CrossFit’s traditional programming methods. For the
TAR training group, participants self-reported physical activity within 240-300 minutes
of moderate-vigorous exercise as defined by the ACSM. (Moderate = noticeably
increased heart rate and breathing. Vigorous = substantially increased heart rate and
breathing (ACSM GETP, 2013). Moderate to vigorous activity was reported for TAR
exercisers using traditional exercise modalities, such as free weights (dumbbells, barbells,
resistance machines). The same intensity of exercise was reported for the CF group, using
traditional CF programming methodology. Members of each group also reported
participation in exercising over at least the previous 3 consecutive months. All selfreported data was collected via demographic survey found in Appendix C.
Inclusion Criteria
All male participants fell within the age range of 18-29 years old and self-reported
the required volume, type, and length of training experience (via demographic survey)
21
related to the exercise specified above in order to become eligible for the study.
Participants who self-reported 240-300 minutes/week of moderate-vigorous CF
programming were included in the study. Participants who self-reported 240-300
minutes/week of moderate-vigorous TAR training were included in the study. The
primary investigator first demonstrated proper technique on all aspects of the field test;
body composition, sit-and reach, 3-minute step test, 1-repetition maximum deadlift, pro
agility test, standing broad jump, and the pushup test; then participants were required to
demonstrate the ability and willingness to perform all dimensions of the field test
properly and safely under the supervision of the primary investigator and/or qualified
assistants before testing at maximum effort. After all of the above qualities are met, the
participants were eligible to complete the battery of tests measuring overall athletic
performance. Additional criterion was put into place for the purposes of offsite data
collection regarding CF exercisers. If CF exercises participated after performing a
workout, they were required to rest at least 20 minutes before beginning the testing
protocol. The rest period was estimated based upon availability of willing participants.
Full recovery was necessary for performance in the field test, and 20 minutes provided
the subjects with adequate recovery, while also allowing them to perform within an
acceptable window of time suitable for their schedules.
Exclusion Criteria
Participants who did not fall into the correct age range of 18-29 were immediately
excluded. Exclusion criteria also included any participant in both groups who has not
been exercising 240-300 minutes/week at moderate-vigorous intensity for at least the
previous 3 consecutive months. Participants recovering from the occurrence of injury in
22
the past 3 months were also excluded. Any participant self-reporting the use of
performance-enhancing and/or thermogenic supplementation for more than one
continuous week in the past 3 months was excluded from the study. Any participant who
was unable to demonstrate proper form, technique and safety of all parts of the field test
was excluded. Any participant who did not report full recovery after a workout was
excluded from participation. Lastly, any participants who reported competition-level
status of training (either competitive weight lifting, or CF competition at the level of
Regionals) were excluded from the study.
Recruitment
Members of the CF group and TAR group were recruited from various Health and
Physical Education classes held in Zink Hall on the campus of Indiana University of
Pennsylvania. Some of the classes include Health and Wellness, Health and Fitness
Instruction, as well as Exercise Physiology. Participants were also recruited from 2
affiliated CF facilities in the state of Pennsylvania (CrossFit 717 in Lemoyne, PA and
CrossFit Sports Evolution in Altoona, PA) and 1 affiliated CF facility in Ohio (CrossFit
Akron) by contacting owners and management. Signed informed consent was first
obtained from all participants before distribution of the demographic survey. The
demographic survey stratified them into three different categories; CF training, TAR
training, or not eligible for participation in the study.
Procedures
Upon completing the informed consent and demographic survey, all levels of
physical activity, based on self-reported data, were quantified by the primary investigator.
Participants who met the inclusion criteria were sent an email notifying them of their
23
selection for the study. Participants who met exclusion criteria were sent an email
thanking them for their willingness to participate. On-site distribution of informed
consent as well as demographic surveys was necessary for participation of members at
facilities located outside of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania campus. Off-campus
data collecting sessions were scheduled according to contacts made with owners of the
CF facilities. All participants who met inclusion criteria then set up a time to meet with
the primary investigator for data collection. At the exercise session, the procedures were
strictly followed under supervision of the primary investigator and qualified assistants.
The primary investigator first explained and demonstrated each test, to ensure familiarity
and understanding on the part of each participant. Upon completion of the protocol, the
exercise session was ended and the participant was finished with their part in the study.
All participants were able to demonstrate safe performance of the 7 testing domains
evaluated to test overall fitness. There were no drop-outs recorded by the primary
investigator. All participants showed up for their scheduled sessions, and completed the
various field tests safely and accurately.
Data Collection
The field test to measure overall athletic performance included seven domains of
fitness. Listed below are the seven domains of fitness and the fitness test associated with
each domain in the correct order they were presented to each participant. These tests were
each chosen for the practical application based upon the primary investigator’s ability to
successfully and accurately recreate the tests at various sites. All tests were performed
safely, under the supervision of the primary investigator. Following the list of tests
describes the procedure for performing each test in detail. Finally, following the
24
description of how to perform each test is the data collection sheet which was used
throughout the study. The seven fitness domains are as follows:
1. Body composition – measured by three-site skinfold (chest, abdomen,
thigh).
2. Flexibility – measured by the sit-and-reach.
3. Aerobic Capacity – measured by Queens College three-minute step test
4. Maximum Strength – measured by one-repetition maximum deadlift
5. Agility – measured by the pro agility test
6. Maximum Power – measured by standing long jump
7. Muscular Endurance – measured by push-up test
1. Body Composition – Body composition was measured by a three-site skinfold test
using the chest, abdomen and thigh. The chest location is one half the distance
between the anterior axillary line and the nipple. It is a diagonal fold. The
abdomen location is two centimeters to the right of the umbilicus. The thigh
location is on the anterior midline of the thigh, midway between the proximal
border of the patella and the crease of the hip. All measurements were made on
the right side of the body with the subject standing upright. The caliper was
placed directly on the skin of the subject, with the pinch maintained during the
reading. Duplicate measures will be taken at each site, with the average of two
measurements being used in summation. The formula is as follows…
Body density = 1.112 – (sum of three folds) + (sum of three folds)^2 – (sum of three
folds x age) (ACSM HRPFAM, 2010)
25
Figure 1: Chest Site
Figure 2: Abdomen Site
Figure 3: Thigh Site
(ACSM HRPFAM, 2010)
26
2. Flexibility – The sit-and-reach test was used to measure flexibility. A tapemeasure was used to place a mark on the floor. This mark was indicative of the
15-inch mark of the sit-and-reach test. Any necessary warm-up and/or stretching
was allowed based on the participant’s need. The participant sat on the ground
with their shoes off. They slowly reached forward as far as possible on the
ground. The distance reached was recorded in reference to the initial 15-inch
mark placed on the ground. The best of three trials was recorded to the nearest .25
inch.
Figure 4: Sit-and-Reach Test
(NSCA, 2008)
3. Aerobic Capacity – This was measured by the Queens College three-minute step
test. A 16.25 inch step was used with a metronome set at 96 beats per minute (24
steps per minute). The subject took time to orient themselves to the cadence of 96
beats per minute. Each sound of the metronome indicated either a step up or a step
down. The cadence was, “up, up, down, down.” Once the subject was comfortable
with the protocol, they began the three-minute step test. Upon completion, heart
rate was immediately recorded for one minute. The heart rate was then used in the
following equation to estimate maximum oxygen consumption (a.k.a. VO2 max
27
OR aerobic capacity): VO2 max (ml/kg/min) = 111.33 – (.42 x HR) (ACSM
HRPFAM, 2010)
Figure 5: Queens College 3-minute Step Test
(ACSM HRPFAM, 2010)
4. Maximum Strength – The one-repetition maximum deadlift was used to measure
maximum strength. The following protocol, as outlined by the NSCA, was used to
find the one-repetition maximum deadlift.
•
Subjects stretched all major muscle groups for 5 minutes prior to testing
•
Subjects demonstrated proper technique and safety on the deadlift with no
added resistance to a standard 45# Olympic weight lifting barbell.
•
Subjects then progressed through the following sequence referenced from
the textbook, “Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning,” until a
maximum lift was performed safely:
1. Instruct the athlete to warm up with a light resistance that easily
allows 5 to 10 repetitions.
2. Provide a 1-minute rest period.
3. Estimate a warm-up load that will allow the athlete to complete
three to five repetitions by adding...
28
a. 10 – 20 pounds or 5 – 10% for upper body exercise
b. 30 – 40 pounds or 10 – 20% for lower body exercise
4. Provide a 2-minute rest period.
5. Estimate a conservative, near-maximal load that will allow the
athlete to complete two to three repetitions by adding…
a. 10 – 20 pounds or 5 – 10% for upper body exercise
b. 30 – 40 pounds or 10 – 20% for lower body exercise
6. Provide a 2- to 4-minute rest period.
7. Make a load increase…
a. 10 – 20 pounds or 5 – 10% for upper body exercise
b. 30 – 40 pounds or 10 – 20% for lower body exercise
8. Instruct the athlete to attempt a 1-repetition maximum lift
9. If the athlete was successful, provide a 2- to 4-minute rest period
and go back to step 7.
If the athlete fails, a 2- to 4-minute rest period is provided, and then the
load is decreased by subtracting…
-
5 – 10 pounds or 2.5 – 5% for upper body
exercise
-
15 – 20 pounds or 5 – 10% for lower body
exercise
AND then go back to step 8.
29
Figure 6: Deadlift
(NSCA, 2008)
5. Agility – Agility was measured by the pro agility test as outlined by the
NSCA. Three lines were marked on the ground five yards apart from each
other. A stopwatch was used to record the time. The athlete started on the
middle line, and upon their first movement, time was started. They sprinted to
either line (right or left), changed direction and then sprinted ten yards past the
middle line to the far line 10 yards away, then changed direction one last time
and sprinted to the finishing middle line. The best time of two trials was
recorded to the nearest .01 second.
Figure 7: Pro-Agility Test
(NSCA, 2008)
30
6. Maximum Power – Power was measured by the standing long jump, as
outlined by the NSCA. A piece of tape was laid down as the starting line. The
subject stood with toes behind the line and proceeded to jump as far as
possible. The subject was required to land on both feet, without the arms
assisting in the landing, in order for the jump to count. A marker was placed at
the back of the heels and measured for distance. The best of 3 trials was
recorded to the nearest .5 inch.
Figure 8: Standing Long Jump
(NSCA, 2008)
7. Muscular Endurance – Muscular endurance was measured according to the
NSCA’s description of the push-up test. The subject started with hands
shoulder-width apart, elbows and body completely straight. The low position
of the push-up required the upper arms to be parallel to the ground. As many
repetitions as possible were performed until failure. The top position of the
pushup was the only position allowed during any necessary resting periods.
This final number of correctly performed pushups was recorded.
31
Figure 9: Pushup Test
(NSCA, 2008)
Instruments
Informed consent forms (Appendix B) were first distributed to various groups of
people from a wide variety of facilities in the hopes of finding CF and TAR participants.
Demographics (Appendix C) were obtained from all participants upon completion of the
initial survey. Materials for data collection included the following: skinfold calipers,
measuring tape, duct tape, 16.25in. step, stopwatch, Olympic barbell, and weight plates.
The data collection sheet used throughout the study is found in Appendix A. Data
collection occurred onsite at various facilities. Facilities used include Zink Fitness Center
as well as various CF affiliated gyms. These gyms include CrossFit 717 in Lemoyne, PA,
CrossFit Akron in Akron, OH, and Sports Evolution in Altoona, PA. Data collection
lasted approximately 45-60 minutes, with all field tests being performed sequentially in
one continuous session.
Analysis/Statistics
Measures of central tendency were used to quantify performances of each specific
field test. Tests of correlation were used to describe the strength of the relationship
between each training program and overall athletic performance. Differences between
32
and among groups are observed through t-tests in order to measure the significance levels
of the data.
Timeline
Surveys were distributed beginning February 2013. Following informed consent,
data collection began immediately and lasted until the appropriate number of subjects is
obtained. Each individual session lasted 45-60 minutes, and was supervised by the
principle investigator and qualified assistants. Assistants were specifically trained in
performance of the field test as well as data collection strategies by the primary
investigator. With the help of an assistant, data was collected from multiple participants
simultaneously.
Confidentiality
No individual personal information or results of the study will be presented to
anyone but the primary investigator. Data collected throughout the course of the study may
be presented in anonymous fashion at professional conferences, and participants were
informed of this possibility.
33
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Subject Demographics
The final number of participants for both the CF group (n=19) and the TAR group
(n=19) totaled 38. Average age of the study population was 22.58 ± 2.04 years (CF =
22.89 ± 2.38 years, TAR = 22.26 ± 1.63 years). Height in inches was nearly identical as
well, with an average of 70.53 ± 1.91 inches (CF = 70.32 ± 2.19 inches, TAR = 70.74 ±
1.63 inches). Weight recorded in pounds averaged 186.47 ± 23.44 pounds for the entire
subject population. Variance in weight was high in each group (average of CF = 187.05 ±
23.45 pounds, TAR = 185.89 ± 24.05 pounds).
Table 1:
Subject Demographics
Subject Demographics
Group
Age in years
N
CF
Mean
Std. Deviation
N
TAR
Mean
Std. Deviation
N
Total
Mean
Std. Deviation
Height in inches
Weight in pounds
19
19
19
22.90
70.32
187.05
± 2.38
± 2.19
± 23.45
19
19
19
22.26
70.74
185.89
± 1.63
± 1.63
± 24.05
38
38
38
22.58
70.53
186.47
± 2.04
± 1.91
± 23.44
34
No statistical significance was found between the TAR group and the CF group in
terms of age (p = .35). Table 2 displays this analysis.
Table 2:
Age Comparison Between TAR and CF Participants
Age Comparison
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
Mean
95% Confidence Interval
Difference
of the Difference
Lower
Age in
Equal variances
years
assumed
.96
36
.35
.63
Upper
-.71
1.97
No statistical significance was found between the TAR group and the CFgroup in
terms of height (p = .51). Table 3 displays the analysis of the height of participants in
each group.
Table 3:
Height Comparison Between TAR and CF Participants
Height Comparison
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
Mean
95% Confidence Interval
Difference
of the Difference
Lower
Height in
Equal variances
inches
assumed
-.67
36
.51
-.42
Upper
-1.69
.85
No statistical significance was found between the TAR group and the CF group in
terms of weight (p = .88). Below, Table 3 displays the comparison of means between
groups.
35
Table 4:
Weight Comparison Between TAR and CF Participants
Weight Comparison
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
Mean
95% Confidence Interval
Difference
of the Difference
Lower
Weight in
Equal variances
pounds
assumed
.15
36
.88
1.16
Upper
-14.47
16.79
84% of participants in the TAR group reported exercising between 3-5 days per
week (n=16). 1 participant reported less than 3 days per week of exercise (5.3%), and 2
participants reported a frequency greater than 5 days per week (10.5%). The predominant
frequency of exercise clearly falls between 3 and 5 days per week for this group.
Table 5:
Frequency of Training – TAR Group
Weekly Frequency of Exercise:
TAR Group
TAR
Frequency
< 3 days
3 to 5 days
> 5 days
Total
Percent
1
5.3
16
84.2
2
10.5
19
100.0
The CF group reported similar results in terms of frequency of exercise. 94% of
this group reported exercising between 3-5 days per week (n=18), while only 1
participant from this group reported exercising more frequently than 5 days per week
36
(5.3%). Once again, in terms of frequency, 3 to 5 days per week is the overwhelming
response.
Table 6:
Frequency of Training – CF Group
Weekly Frequency of Exercise: CF Group
CF
Frequency
3 to 5 days
Percent
18
94.7
1
5.3
19
100.0
> 5 days
Total
No statistical significance was found between the two groups in terms of
frequency of training. Table 7 displays a p value of .48, resulting from a comparison of
means between groups run via Chi-Square.
Table 7:
Comparison of Means Between Groups – Frequency of Training
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Sig.
Pearson Chi-Square
1.45
2
.48
Likelihood Ratio
1.84
2
.40
Linear-by-Linear Association
.00
1
1.00
N of Valid Cases
38
37
94% of the participants in the TAR group reported duration of exercise between
45-60 minutes in length (n=18). Only 1 participant from this group reported duration of
exercise session to be greater than 60 minutes (5.3%). The predominant duration was
reported between 45 and 60 minutes per session for the TAR Group.
Table 8:
Training Session Length – TAR Group
Session Duration: TAR Group
TAR
Frequency
45 to 60 min.
> 60 min.
Total
Percent
18
94.7
1
5.3
19
100.0
In terms of session duration, the same number of participants in the CF group
reported exercise sessions lasting between 45-60 minutes in duration (n=18, 94%). Again,
only 1 participant reported training sessions lasting longer than 60 minutes in duration
(5.3%). 45 to 60 minutes is clearly the most popular response in terms of session length.
38
Table 9:
Training Session Length – CF Group
Session Duration: CF Group
CF
Frequency
45 to 60 min.
Percent
18
94.7
1
5.3
19
100.0
> 60 min.
Total
Table 10 was produced via Chi-Square analysis. Due to both groups having 1
participant reporting greater than 60-minute sessions, the Fisher’s Exact Test is used to
test significance. When two variables report under 5 counts, the Fisher’s Exact Test
corrects for this low number. There was no significant difference between the two groups
in terms of session duration (p = .76). Table 10 displays this relationship.
Table 10:
Comparison of Means Between Groups – Session Duration
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correction
b
Likelihood Ratio
df
Sig.
.00
1
.00
1
.00
1
Fisher's Exact Test
.76
Linear-by-Linear Association
.00
N of Valid Cases
38
1
a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 1.00.
39
In terms of total minutes (volume) per week of exercise, the most frequently
reported response in the TAR group was 240-300 minutes per week (47%, n=9). The
number of participants who reported more precise values of exactly 240 minutes per
week OR exactly 300 minutes per week is 7 (18%) and 3 (8%) respectively. The most
popular response in terms of weekly volume is between 240 and 300 minutes per week
for this group.
Table 11:
Weekly Volume of Exercise – TAR Group
Weekly Volume of Exercise: TAR Group
TAR
Frequency
Percent
240 min.
7
36.8
240 to 300 min.
9
47.4
300 min.
3
15.8
19
100.0
Total
The majority of participants in the CF group reported exercising 240 minutes per
week (n=8, 42.1%). 36.8% of participants (n=7) reported an exercise volume between
240-300 minutes per week. The remaining CF participants (n=4) reported 300 minutes
per week of exercise (21.1%). Although the majority is not overwhelming, the most
popular weekly volume of exercise per week for CF training exercisers is 240 minutes
per week.
40
Table 12:
Weekly Volume of Exercise – CF Group
Weekly Volume of Exercise: CF Group
CF
Frequency
Percent
240 min.
8
42.1
240-300 min.
7
36.8
300 min.
4
21.1
19
100.0
Total
Table 13 shows the relationship between groups in terms of volume of exercise. A
Chi-Square test was run to analyze the results. The comparison of means in terms of
volume of exercise between groups revealed no statistical significance (p = .80).
Table 13:
Comparison of Means Between Groups – Volume of Exercise
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Sig.
Pearson Chi-Square
.46
2
.80
Likelihood Ratio
.46
2
.79
Linear-by-Linear Association
.00
1
1.00
N of Valid Cases
38
41
Both groups were required to report levels of moderate-vigorous activity during
exercise. Numbers expressed are in terms of total participants of combined TAR and CF
groups (n=38). 87% of the total subject population (n=33) reported activity levels of
moderate-vigorous intensity 100% of the time. All 19 participants in the CF group fell
into this category. The remaining 5 participants (13.2%), who all came from the TAR
group, reported activity levels of moderate-vigorous intensity only 75% of the time,
accounting for light intensity warm-ups and cool-downs. For purposes of this study,
moderate exercise was defined as noticeably increased heart rate and breathing, while
vigorous exercise was defined as substantially increased heart rate and breathing (ACSM,
2008).
Table 14:
Moderate-Vigorous Activity Level
Moderate-Vigorous Activity: Combined Groups
Percentage of Exercise
100%
Frequency
Percent
33
86.8
75%
***5
13.2
Total
38
100.0
***The 5 participants in the “75%” row are ALL from the TAR group
The TAR group had 5 members who reported moderate-vigorous activity levels
only 75% of the time, compared to the entire group of CF participants, who reported
levels of moderate-vigorous activity 100% of the time. The comparison of means
42
between groups is displayed in Table 15. The p value of .02 suggests this relationship
between groups is, in fact, significant.
Table 15:
Comparison of Means Between Groups – Moderate-Vigorous Activity
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
Mean
95% Confidence
Difference
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Time spent in
Equal variances
Mod-Vig activity
assumed
-2.54
36
.02
-.26
Upper
-.47
-.05
In terms of experience levels, participants were asked to describe how they have
been adhering to their current exercise program over the preceding weeks, months, or
years. Table 16 is labeled, “Length of Time of Consecutive Training.” This table displays
experience level. All responses are expressed in terms of previous and consecutive time
spent in the current exercise program. All experience levels will be discussed as “current”
experience levels, meaning they are in the midst of their current designated program and
time frame of experience. Participants in the CF group show a fairly even distribution,
with 4 participants reporting 3-6 consecutive months of current experience, 4 participants
reporting 6-12 consecutive months experience, 6 participants reporting 1-2 consecutive
years of experience, and 5 participants reporting current experience for a longer duration
than 2 consecutive years. In contrast, the TAR group shows a more uneven distribution of
experience levels among subjects. 1 participant reported having 3-6 consecutive months
of experience, 2 participants reported 6-12 consecutive months of experience, 4
43
participants reported having 1-2 years of current experience, and the remaining 12
participants reported greater than 2 consecutive years of experience.
Table 16:
Length of Time of Consecutive Training – Crosstabulation
Experience Among Participants
Group
Experience
3 to 6 months
6 to 12 months
Total
1 to 2 years
> 2 years
CF
4
4
6
5
19
TAR
1
2
4
12
19
5
6
10
17
38
Total
It is clear to see that the TAR group is clearly much more experienced than the CF
group. This is worthy of further discussion concerning the difference in performance
between groups, specifically in maximum strength. The difference in maximum strength,
as shown in Table 18, displays a significant relationship (p = .03), and will be discussed
in greater detail in Chapter 5. After running a generalized linear regression model in
order to show the strength of relationship between the two variables of maximum
strength and experience level, results suggest that experience played a role. Table 17
shows this interaction. Experience12 is defined as “training experience of at least the
previous 12 months.” When this variable (Experience12) is defined as a covariate, the
impact on maximum strength is profound, and quite possibly the reason for such drastic
differences between groups.
44
Table 17:
Strength of a Covariate (Experience12)
Experience Level Affects Maximum Strength Performance
Dependent Variable: Maximum Strength (pounds)
Source
Type III Sum of
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Squares
a
3
17782.51
6.79
.00
3129417.06
1
3129417.06
1194.44
.00
Group
12358.85
1
12358.85
4.72
.04
Experience12
19137.80
1
19137.80
7.31
.01
6878.36
1
6878.36
2.63
.11
Error
89079.45
34
2619.98
Total
4878275.00
38
142426.97
37
Corrected Model
Intercept
Group * Experience12
Corrected Total
53347.52
a. R Squared = .38 (Adjusted R Squared = .32)
This table shows that performance of maximum strength shares a significant
relationship with not only “group” (p = .04), but also “Experience12” (p = .01). This
means there is a significant relationship between those exercising for at least the previous
12 consecutive months and maximum strength performance. This relationship will be
further discussed in Chapter 5.
Statistical Analysis
Hypothesis I:
The first hypothesis stated that the CF training group will show significantly
higher performance in all fitness domains with the exception of maximum strength (onerepetition maximum deadlift). Since the intentions of one who trains with TAR
modalities and scientifically supported methodology is more focused on strength and/or
the improvement of a single domain of fitness, as compared to CF’s methodology, which
45
focuses on the improvement of various domains simultaneously, it was hypothesized that
maximum strength would be the only domain without a significant improvement shown
by the CF group. The results shown in Table 18 display the performance of each group in
all domains of fitness incorporated in the field test.
Table 18:
Field Test Group Data
Field Test Data
Group
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
CF
19
13.47
± 4.14
.95
TAR
19
14.91
1.05
CF
19
17.45
TAR
19
17.41
CF
19
51.71
TAR
19
50.54
CF
19
374.47
TAR
19
331.58
CF
19
4.83
TAR
19
4.75
CF
19
90.32
TAR
19
90.18
Muscular Endurance
CF
19
47.89
± 4.59
± 3.74
± 4.76
± 6.41
± 5.15
± 68.23
± 47.81
± .40
± .25
± 9.96
± 8.15
± 6.29
(repetitions)
TAR
19
48.26
±15.55
Body Composition (% fat)
Flexibility (inches)
Aerobic Capacity (ml/kg/min)
Maximum Strength (pounds)
Agility (seconds)
Maximum Power (inches)
.86
1.09
1.47
1.18
15.65
10.97
.09
.06
2.29
1.87
3.74
3.57
The mean scores were higher in the CF group compared to the TAR group in 5
out of the 7 domains tested. The following pages describe the results in performance of
each fitness domain, followed by a comparison of means between groups.
Body composition shows that the average body fat percentage for CF exercisers
was 13.47 ± 4.14% while the average percentage of body fat for TAR exercisers was
14.91 ± 4.59%. Both groups displayed a similar deviation from the mean. The p-value for
46
this statistic, found in Table 19 (p = .31), suggests no statistically significant difference in
% body fat between participants in each group.
Table 19:
Comparison of Means Between Groups – Body Composition
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
Mean
95% Confidence
Difference
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Body Composition Equal variances
(% fat)
-1.02
assumed
36
.31
-1.45
Upper
-4.32
1.43
The second domain of fitness evaluated was flexibility through a sit-and-reach
test. The CF group averaged a distance of 17.45 ± 3.74 inches, while the TAR group
averaged a distance of 17.41 ± 4.76 inches. There was no statistical significance between
the two groups for this measure (p = .99, Table 20). Once again, the standard deviation in
each group is separated by a small amount (1.02 inches), showing that each group
showed similar variability in performance.
Table 20:
Comparison of Means Between Groups - Flexibility
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
Mean
95% Confidence Interval
Difference
of the Difference
Lower
Flexibility
Equal variances
(inches)
assumed
.03
36
.99
.04
-2.78
Upper
2.86
47
Aerobic capacity, predicted with a pulse taken immediately following the Queens
College 3-minute Step Test, also produced similar results between groups. The CF group
averaged 51.71 ± 6.42 ml/kg/min, while the TAR group averaged 50.54 ± 5.12
ml/kg/min. The deviation from the mean was similar in each group. No statistical
significance was found between groups (p = .54, Table 21).
Table 21:
Comparison of Means Between Groups – Aerobic Capacity
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
Mean
95% Confidence
Difference
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Aerobic Capacity
Equal variances
(ml/kg/min)
assumed
.62
36
.54
1.17
Upper
-2.65
5.00
Maximum strength, tested by the one-repetition maximum performance in the
deadlift, is the only tested domain of fitness to show any significance between groups.
The CF group was able to average a one-repetition maximum deadlift weight of 374.47 ±
68.23 pounds. This standard deviation is alarmingly high, and worth noting. On the other
hand, the TAR group performed significantly lower. The TAR group averaged 331.58 ±
47.81 pounds in the performance of the one-repetition maximum deadlift. The deviation
from the mean in the TAR group is also high, but not nearly as high as the CF group.
This suggests that although the CF group averaged a higher value in pounds, the TAR
group showed a slightly more consistent performance in the deadlift among participants.
The overall difference in pounds lifted between groups is equal to 42.89 pounds. The
48
level of significance found in Table 22 is p = .03. This is the first domain revealing a
level of significance between groups.
Table 22:
Comparison of Means Between Groups – Maximum Strength
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
Mean
95% Confidence
Difference
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Maximum Strength Equal variances
(pounds)
assumed
2.24
36
.03
42.89
Upper
4.13
81.66
In terms of agility, tested through the pro agility test, the TAR group averaged a
time of 4.75 ± .25 seconds, while the CF group averaged 4.83 ± .4 seconds. The deviation
from the mean was similar in both groups. When looking at the significance of this
analysis, the Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances indicates a significant value (p =
.02). When this value is significant, it is rejected and equal variances are not assumed. As
a result, the total difference of .08 seconds was not enough to achieve a level of statistical
significance (p = .45, Table 23).
49
Table 23:
Comparison of Means Between Groups - Agility
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality
of
Variances
Sig.
t
df
Sig.
Mean
95% Confidence
Difference
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Equal variances
Agility
assumed
(seconds)
Equal variances
not assumed
.02
Upper
.77
36
.45
.08
-.14
.30
.77
29.98
.45
.08
-.14
.31
The domain of maximum power was tested through the standing long jump. The
CF group averaged a long jump of 90.32 ± 9.96 inches, while the TAR group jumped an
average of 90.18 ± 8.15 inches. Once again, the deviation is similar between groups, and
this difference in performance did not reveal a statistically significant relationship (p =
.97, Table 24).
50
Table 24:
Comparison of Means Between Groups – Maximum Power
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
Mean
95% Confidence
Difference
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Maximum Power
Equal variances
(inches)
assumed
.05
36
.97
.13
Upper
-5.86
6.12
The last fitness domain included in the field test was muscular endurance, tested
with the pushup test. In terms of total number of repetitions performed, the TAR group
averaged 48.26 ± 15.55 repetitions, and the CF group averaged 47.89 ± 16.29 repetitions,
ultimately leading to a p value of p = .94 (Table 25). The values of standard deviation for
both groups indicate a large distribution of data.
Table 25:
Comparison of Means Between Groups – Muscular Endurance
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
Mean
95% Confidence
Difference
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Muscular
Endurance
(repetitions)
Equal variances
assumed
-.07
36
.94
-.37
-10.85
Upper
10.11
Table 26 displays a summary of all previously discussed comparison of means
analyses of all tested domains of fitness.
51
Table 26:
Comparison of Means Between Groups – Field Test Data
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means
T
df Sig.
Mean
95% Confidence
Difference
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Body Composition
(% fat)
Flexibility (inches)
Aerobic Capacity
(ml/kg/min)
Maximum Strength
(pounds)
Agility (seconds)
Maximum Power
(inches)
Muscular Endurance
(repetitions)
Upper
Equal variances assumed
-1.02 36
.31
-1.45
-4.32
1.43
Equal variances assumed
.03 36
.98
.04
-2.78
2.86
Equal variances assumed
.62 36
.54
1.17
-2.65
5.00
Equal variances assumed
2.24 36
.03
42.90
4.13
81.66
Equal variances not assumed
.77 30
.45
.08
-.14
.31
Equal variances assumed
.05 36
.97
.13
-5.86
6.12
Equal variances assumed
-.07 36
.94
-.37
-10.85
10.11
Due to the significance level of .03 in performance of maximum strength with equal
variances assumed, Hypothesis I is rejected.
Hypothesis II:
The second hypothesis stated that there will be no significant difference in the
performance of maximum strength between the two groups. In fact, maximum strength,
as previously stated, is the only domain of fitness to show any significance between
groups, directly contrasting this hypothesis. Rather than the CF group achieving slightly
higher, although insignificant, levels of maximal strength performance as expected, all
levels of performance were similar, with maximum strength being the only domain
52
holding any significant difference. The CF group averaged 374 ± 68.23 pounds, while the
TAR group averaged 331.58 ± 47.81 pounds (Table 18), leading to a statistically
significant relationship (p = .03, Table 28).
The summarized performances in all domains of the field test specific to each
group are as follows: Body composition was lower in CF participants than in TAR
participants (13.47% fat and 14.91% fat respectively). Flexibility averages were recorded
at 17.45 inches for the CF group and 17.41 inches for the TAR group. The CF group
showed better performance in terms of aerobic capacity, with a mean value of 51.71
ml/kg/min, while the TAR group averaged 50.54 ml/kg/min. The largest difference was
found in performance of maximum strength (CF = 374.47 pounds, TAR = 331.58
pounds). In terms of agility, the anaerobic group showed a slightly greater performance
with an average time of 4.75 seconds, while the CF group’s average time was 4.83
seconds. In terms of maximum power, the CF group once again showed a slightly better
score of 90.32 inches while the TAR group’s average was 90.18 inches. Lastly, the
muscular endurance score slightly favored the TAR group over the CF group (48.26
repetitions and 47.89 repetitions respectively).
It was assumed that because of the variability associated with CF’s programming
(focusing on multiple fitness domains simultaneously), the CF group would significantly
outperform the TAR group in every category, with respect to maximum strength. In fact,
no significant difference is found to favor CF in any domain other than maximum
strength, as previously noted. Two of the tested domains (agility and muscular
endurance) ended up showing a performance favoring the TAR group (although not
significant). Due to significant maximum strength values, as well as favorable values for
53
agility and muscular endurance field tests in the TAR group, the second hypothesis is
rejected.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
Summary/Discussion
In terms of the selection of tests, further discussion is required. All tests were
chosen in order to ensure validity. One topic worthy of discussion is the selection of
tested areas of fitness. It is worth noting that if all 10 domains of CF were tested, the
results may have been different, possibly favoring the CF group. These fitness domains
include cardiovascular and respiratory endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility, power,
speed, coordination, agility, balance and accuracy (CrossFit Training Guide, 2010). On
the other hand, if all 10 domains defined by the NSCA were tested, it is likely the results
may have favored the TAR group. These fitness domains include maximum muscular
strength, maximum muscular power, muscular endurance, anaerobic capacity, aerobic
capacity, agility, speed, body composition, flexibility, and anthropometry (NSCA, 2008).
The administration of these tests was exactly the same at all sites, and the
selection of tests was formed around concept of successfully recreating simple, and
similar environments at different sites. Skinfold measurements were chosen as a measure
of body composition because the calipers (which measure the folds in the skin) are easily
transported to different sites. Other modes of body composition may be more accurate,
such as the bod pod, or hydrostatic weighing, but they are not nearly as practical in terms
of transportability.
54
The sit-and-reach test was chosen for flexibility because of the ease of the
administration of the test. A piece of tape and a meter stick are the only supplies needed
for this test. It is also highly validated and supported in research, making its selection
very practical.
To test aerobic capacity, the Queens College three-minute step test was chosen
due to the sub-maximal nature of the test. Other modes of testing aerobic capacity may be
more accurate, but require more time and energy to administer. Tests using a metabolic
cart do a great job at providing accurate measures of maximal rates of oxygen
consumption, but it would have been very difficult to get all participants into a laboratory
for this kind of testing. The Queens College three-minute step test allowed the
participants to display their aerobic capacity without participating in a maximal test. This
allowed them to still have energy to participate in the rest of the field test.
The deadlift was chosen because it requires no spotting. It is possible that the
selection of a different exercise may have influenced the results differently. In terms of
strength, the deadlift only measured lower back, quadriceps, and hamstring strength. The
selection of an upper body strength exercise, for example the bench press, may have
elicited different results. With the limited availability of qualified research assistants,
selecting an exercise that required no spotters was the most practical choice.
In terms of agility, the pro agility test was selected because it only takes up 30
feet of space, and lasts less than 6 seconds in duration. It is an easy test to set up and
perform. The only materials needed are pieces of tape and a stop watch.
The standing long jump was chosen for power due to the ease of repeatability.
Other modes of assessing power, such as the high jump, or a one-repetition maximum
55
power clean, were not as practical for transportation. The high jump would have required
the transportation of a vertec, a high standing structure measuring the height of a jump,
which was not available to the primary investigator. Using another test like the power
clean could have possibly eliminated some of the participants from the pool of subjects if
they had no familiarity with the exercise. This is why the standing long jump was chosen.
Lastly, the pushup test was chosen for muscular endurance. This test is very
simple, requires no materials other than body weight, and is very easy to administer and
perform. Its practicality made it a great choice for this study.
An obvious question should be asked regarding why these results occurred, and
why they contradicted the hypotheses. CF carries a reputation of producing optimal levels
of fitness, with the chronic benefits lacking scientific support. On the other hand, the
benefits of TAR training have been proven to produce successful results through years of
literature, and this testing was designed to display the efficacy of each of these programs.
Although there is no definitive answer to why the results occurred, speculations and
educated opinions can be made. Here are some factors that could have influenced the
results. When gathering data for the TAR group, a majority of the participants inquired
about the use of lifting straps for performance. Lifting straps are often used by exercisers
when their grip strength is not enough to lift a specified amount of weight from the
ground. In the case of the deadlift, lifting straps can be used as a way to eliminate the
dependence of grip strength while lifting the bar from the floor. As a result of using
lifting straps, heavier weight can be lifted even in situations when grip strength would
normally lead to a weaker performance. For the purposes of this study, lifting straps
would have allowed participants in either group to perform at a higher level, due to the
56
decrease in reliance of grip strength. The use of lifting straps was not allowed, which
created an equal platform for all participants. If every participant did not own or regularly
use lifting straps, it would be unfair to let any one participant use them. So an argument
could be made that the performance of maximum strength suffered for the TAR group
due to the fact that the majority of participants were unable to perform the deadlift under
their typical conditions, with the added comfort and stability of lifting straps.
Another possible confounding variable influencing the performance of
participants in the TAR group could be their participation in aerobic training. In the
current study, there was no control over whether or not the TAR group participated in
aerobic activity in combination with their self-reported anaerobic activity. If the
participants in the TAR group also participated in aerobic training, this could have
severely reduced the level of significance in some, if not all of the field tests. CF training
involves cardiovascular and anaerobic training simultaneously. On the other hand, TAR
training involves no form of simultaneous cardiovascular training. It is possible that
participants in the TAR group took part in cardiovascular training in separate training
sessions from the anaerobic sessions they reported, which could have essentially made
the type of exercise performed by each group more similar than expected by the
researcher.
On the other hand, while performing data collection offsite at various CF
facilities, there were instances when some participants volunteered for participation after
completing a workout. If this was the case, they were required to rest for at least 20
minutes before beginning the testing protocol. Even still, this could be a confounding
variable ultimately affecting performance.
57
A significant relationship between level of experience and maximum strength, as
previously noted, is a point of high relevance. Table 17 shows the interaction between
these two variables. Experience12 is defined as “training experience of at least 12
months.” When this variable (Experience12) is defined as a covariate, the significant
relationship becomes clear.
This relationship between performance of maximum strength and the two
variables of “group” (p = .04) and “Experience 12” (p = .01) clearly display the
significance. As previously discussed, the reasoning behind this is unclear, but according
to the data presented, an argument can be made that TAR exercisers with a high level of
experience significantly under-perform CF exercisers with similar levels of experience in
terms of the maximum amount of weight lifted in pounds for a one-repetition maximum
deadlift. The following graph depicts this relationship.
Figure 10: Effect of Training Experience on Maximum Strength
58
The long dashed line shows the pounds lifted by the CF group, while the small
dashed line shows the pounds lifted by the TAR group. The participants who did not have
at least 12 months of previous experience answered “no” and the participants who did
have at least 12 months of previous exercise experience answered “yes.” The slopes of
these two lines indicate the significant relationship between maximum strength and
experience of at least 12 months. Those who were more experienced (labeled “yes”) had
a much higher performance in maximum strength compared to those with less experience
(labeled “no”). The difference of maximum strength was found to be the only statistically
significant difference between groups, with experience clearly influencing this result.
Future Implications/Direction of Research
Future study should consider the use of different measures to test all domains of
fitness. All tests were selected for this test in order to easily reproduce the test at various
sites. In the future, if only one site is used for data collection, more rigorous testing can
be performed on multiple days. The use of a laboratory will allow more accurate
measures of various domains of fitness with the availability of lab equipment such as a
hydrostatic weighing tank and a metabolic cart.
Future study of the comparison between CF training and TAR training should
consider modification of study design. The self-reported physical activity was a limitation
to this research, so it is evident that baseline measurements and assessments of activity
levels are necessary to ensure accuracy. Researchers with a focus in the National Strength
and Conditioning Association (NSCA) may also want to require participation from
subjects at one main site to ensure the proper order of exercises as defined by the NSCA.
NSCA protocol would design a field test with these domains as follows: Body
59
Composition, Flexibility, Agility, Maximum Power, Maximum Strength, Muscular
Endurance, followed by Aerobic Capacity. This design was modified in order to work
around current group classes and use space and equipment as it was available. Future
researchers may want to control the environment to ensure proper NSCA protocol is
enforced in terms of exercise order.
Future research in the form of randomized clinical trials should consider the
possibility of a large sample of baseline individuals, with placement into a possibility of
multiple groups ranging from CF exercise, TAR exercise, aerobic exercise, and a
combination of both aerobic and TAR exercise. Studies should look into current
exercisers as well as sedentary individuals (beginning exercisers), although caution
should be taken when prescribing any type of exercise to sedentary individuals. Through
the implementation of specific programming, pre- and post-assessments should be made
using fitness domains representative of overall health and athletic performance (similar to
the domains used in this research).
In the future, researchers should also consider single and multiple daily sessions
with emphasis towards manipulating the training modalities of cardiovascular as well as
anaerobic training. This will allow researchers to assess the effectiveness of combined
training methods in specific domains of fitness compared to the effectiveness of dividing
cardiovascular and anaerobic training into two separate daily sessions.
As more research is being published regarding CF, it is becoming evident that its
effects on physiology and physical fitness are not entirely understood. Although the
results of this study prove equal effectiveness of CF methodology, with the exception of
maximum strength, compared to TAR training, more research is necessary in the form of
60
various designs to prove that CF produces optimal physiology, translated into maximal
athleticism.
Conclusion
The two hypotheses, which stated that the CF group will show significantly
higher performance than the TAR group in all 7 tested fitness domains with the exception
of maximum strength, and that there will be no significant difference in performance of
maximum strength between these two groups, did not stand at the conclusion of this
study. In fact, a significant difference between groups was found in maximum strength.
This is of very high importance for both CF and TAR exercisers. Each program is
constantly modifying exercise variables to induce optimal results. The results of this
study may help to focus future manipulation of exercise variables to produce specific
results. The results of this study showed that the CF group produced similar results to the
TAR group, with a significant difference found in 1 of 7 fitness domains tested.
Since there is currently hesitation by many fitness professionals concerning the
safety and efficacy of CF programming, the results of this study will allow fitness
professionals to implement CF training into the exercise programs of clients and athletes
across the world in a safe and effective manner. In terms of the TAR group, the results
are equally as promising. These data prove the efficacy of each of these different
programs, which allows professionals to confidently implement aspects of each of these
programs in the routines of athletes and recreational exercisers across the world. The
efficacy of TAR training is researched and supported in literature. Hopefully this study
will be a stepping stone for future research concerning the efficacy of CF compared to
many different modalities and training methods, because when any exercise regimen is
61
implemented safely and properly by educated professionals, optimal health and
performance levels will result.
62
References
Azizi, M., & Baledi, R. (2012). The comparison effect of aerobic and resistance training
on regional and abdominal fat reduction and some of the heart risk factors among
30 and 45 years old healthy females. International Journal of Collaborative
Research on Internal Medicine and Public Health, 4(4), 309-316.
Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W. (2008). Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning. (3rd Ed.). United States of America. Human Kinetics.
Bakken, R. C., Carey, J. R., Di Fabio, R. P., Erlandson, T. J., Hake, J. L., & Intihar, T. W.
(2001). Effect of aerobic exercise on tracking performance in elderly people: A
pilot study. Physical Therapy, 81(12), 1870-1878.
Behm, D. G., Faigenbaum, A. D., Falk, B., & Klentrou, P. Canadian society for exercise
physiology position paper: Resistance training in children and adolescents.
Applied Physiology of Nutrition and Metabolism, 33, 547-561.
doi:10.1139/H08-020.
Behrens, T. K., Dinger, M. K., Heesch, K. C., & Sisson, S. B. (2005). College students’
understanding of moderate physical activity: A qualitative study. American
Journal of Health Studies, 20(3), 129-134.
Benson, A. C., Torode, M. E., & Singh, M. A. F. (2008). The effect of high-intensity
progressive resistance training on adiposity in children: A randomized controlled
trial. International Journal of Obesity, 32, 1016-1027. doi:10.1038/ijo.2008.5.
Carpinelli, R. N., Otto, R. M., & Winett, R. A. (2004). A critical analysis of the ACSM
63
position’s stand on resistance training: Insufficient evidence to support
recommended training protocols. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 7(3), 160.
Carral, J. M. C., & Perez, C. A. (2007). Effects of high-intensity combined training on
women over 65. Gerentology, 53, 340-346. doi:10.1159/000104098
Chan, L., Chin, L. M., & Kennedy, M. (2012). Benefits of intensive treadmill exercise
training on cardiorespiratory function and quality of life in patients with
pulmonary hypertension. Current Medical Literature, 3(4), 138.
Chaudhary, S., Kang, M. K., & Sandhu, J. S. (2010). The effects of aerobic versus
resistance training on cardiovascular fitness in obese sedentary females. Asian
Journal of Sports Medicine, 1(4), 177-184.
Crawford, M. (2011). Kettlebells: Powerful, effective exercise and rehabilitation tools.
Journal of American Chiropractic Association, 7-10.
Dalleck, L., & Dalleck, A. (2008). The ACSM exercise intensity guidelines for
cardiorespiratory fitness: Why the misuse? Journal of Exercise Physiology
Online, 11(4), 1-11.
Glassman, G. (2003). A postural error: A costly biomechanical fault: Muted hip function
(MHF). Crossfit Journal, 5, 1-2.
Gonzalez, Badillo, J. J., Gorostiaga, E. M., Arellano, R., & Izquierdo, M. (2005).
Moderate resistance training volume produces more favorable strength gains than
high or low volumes during a short-term training cycle. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 19(3), 689-697.
Hameed, U. A., Manzar, D., Raza, S., Shareef, M. Y., & Hussain M. E. (2012).
64
Resistance training leads to clinically meaningful improvements in control of
glycemia and muscular strength in untrained middle-aged patients with type 2
Diabetes Mellitus. North American Journal of Medical Sciences, 4(8), 336-343.
doi:10.4103/1947-2714.99507.
Hamilton, R. J., Paton, C. D., & Hopkins, W. G. (2006). Effect of high-intensity
resistance training on performance of competitive distance runners. International
Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 1, 40-49.
Hartman, M. J., Clark, B., Bemben, D. A., Kilgore, J. L., & Bemben, M. G. (2007).
Comparisons between twice-daily and once-daily training sessions in male weight
lifters. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2, 159-169.
Hoffman, J. R., Cooper, J., Wendell, M., & Kang, J. (2004). Comparison of olympic vs.
traditional power lifting training programs in football players. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 18(1), 129-135.
Hollingsworth, D. (2010). The athletic hip. Crossfit Journal, 1-8.
Jeffrey, C. (2012). CrossFit effectiveness on fitness levels and demonstration of
successful program objectives. UMI number: 1514759.
Kalapotharakos, V. I., Michalopoulou, M., Godolias, G., Tokmakidis, S. P., Malliou, P.
V., & Gourgoulis, V. (2004). The effects of high- and moderate-resistance
training on muscle function in the elderly. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity,
11, 131-143.
Kaminsky, L. A. (Third Ed.). (2010). ACSM’s Health-Related Physical Fitness
Assessment Manual. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Karabulut, M., Bemben, D. A., Sherk, V. D., Anderson, M. A., Abe, T., & Bemben, M.
65
G. (2011). Effects of high-intensity resistance training and low-intensity
resistance training with vascular restriction on bone markers in older men.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 111, 1659-1667.
doi:10.1007/s00421-010-1796-9.
Karavirta, L., Hakkinen, A., Sillanpaa, E., Garcia-Lopez, D., Kauhanen, A., Haapasaari,
A., … Hakkinen, K. (2011). Effects of combined endurance and strength
training on muscle strength, power and hypertrophy in 40-67-year-old men.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 21, 402-411.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01059.x.
Kemmler, W. K., Lauber, D., Engelke, K., & Weineck, J. (2004). Effects of single- vs.
multiple-set resistance training on maximum strength and body composition in
trained postmenopausal women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
18(4), 689-694.
Kilgore, L. (2010). Adaptation for fitness. Crossfit Journal, 1-6.
Kilgore, L., & Rippetoe, M. (2007). Redefining fitness for health and fitness
professionals. Journal of Exercise Physiology online, 10(2), 34-39.
Kirk, E. P., Washburn, R. A., Bailey, B. W., Lechkminant, J. D., & Donnelly, J. E.
(2007). Six months of supervised high-intensity low-volume resistance training
improves strength independent of changes in muscle mass in young overweight
men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(1), 151-156.
Landin, D., & Nelson, A. G. (2007). Early phase strength development: A four-week
training comparison of different programs. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 21(4), 1113-1116.
66
Leyland, T. (2007). Spine mechanics for lifters. Crossfit Journal, 63, 1-5.
Leyland, T. (2007). Variable resistance: Nature or design? Crossfit Journal, 62, 1-4.
Pescatello, L. S., Arena, R., Riebe, D., & Thompson, P. D. (2013). ACSM’s
Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. (9th Ed.). United States of
America. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Rippetoe, M., & Bradford, S. (2008). You don’t know squat without an active hip.
Crossfit Journal, 1-5.
Rippetoe, M. (2006). The crossfit total. Crossfit Journal, 52, 1-4.
Singh, V. P., Jani, H., John, V., Singh, P., & Joseley, T. (2011). Effects of upper body
resistance training on pulmonary functions in sedentary male smokers. Lung
India, 28(3), 169-173. doi:10.4103/0970-2113.83971.
Stone, M. H., Sands, W. A., Pierce, K. C., Newton, R. U., Cowan, E., Haff, G. G., &
Carlock, J. (2006). Maximum strength and strength training – A relationship to
endurance? Strength and Conditioning Journal, 28(3), 44-53.
Straight, C. R., Dorfman, L. R., Cottell, K. E., Krol, J. M., Lofgren, I. E., & Delmonico,
M. J. (2012). Effects of resistance training and dietary changes on physical
function and body composition in overweight and obese older adults. Journal of
Physical Activity and Health, 2012(9), 875-883.
Yoshizawa, M., Maeda, S., Miyaki, A., Misono, M., Saito, Y., Tanabe, K., … & Ajisaka,
R. (2008). Effect of 12 weeks of moderate-intensity resistance training on arterial
stiffness: A randomized controlled trial in women aged 32-59 years. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 43, 615-618. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.052126
67
APPENDIX A
Data Collection Sheet
68
Data Collection Sheet
CF Group or TAR Group
Age:
Height:
Weight:
Body Composition: chest 1
chest 2
aver.
abdomen 1
abdomen 2
aver.
thigh 1
thigh 2
aver.
Sum of 3 folds (averages)
****1.112 – (sum of 3 folds
(age )] =
) + (sum of 3 folds
% body fat
Flexibility – Sit and Reach: trial 1
trial 2
trial 3
in.
in.
in.
)^2 - [sum of 3 folds
score
in.
Aerobic Capacity – Queens College 3-minute Step Test: HR upon completion =
bpm
VO2 max (ml/kg/min) = 111.33 – (.42 x _____) = _____
Maximum Strength – 1RM Deadlift:
Agility – Pro Agility Test: trial 1
trial 2
lbs.
sec.
sec.
Maximum Power – Standing Long Jump: trial 1
trial 2
trial 3
Muscular Endurance – Pushup Test:
score
sec.
in.
in.
in.
score
in.
repetitions
69
APPENDIX B
Informed Consent
70
Informed Consent
Research Question: How does overall athletic performance in 7 domains of fitness common to
both CrossFit and the NSCA (body composition, flexibility, aerobic capacity, maximum strength, agility,
maximum power, and muscular endurance) differ between CrossFit exercisers and traditional anaerobic
resistance exercisers?
Principal Investigator:
Mr. Hayden D. Gerhart
Exercise Physiology Graduate Student – IUP
242 Zink Hall
1190 Maple Street
Indiana, PA 15705
(717) 371-5197
Co-Investigator:
Madeline Paternostro Bayles
Professor
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
210 Zink Hall
1190 Maple Street
Indiana, PA 15705
You are invited to participate in this research study. This form will outline all aspects of the study,
giving you a full description of what will be required of you before you decide whether or not to
participate. The purpose of this study is to measure your overall athletic performance in 7 different fitness
domains. The continual performance of exercises related to these specific fitness domains is expected to
produce optimal overall athleticism.
Your selection for this study will be based on the responses you give me in a brief, but thorough
survey designed to assess your volume, intensity and type of exercise habits. Due to the specific level of
volume, intensity and type of exercise required to participate in this study, it is possible the results of your
survey may place you into exclusion. If this is the case, I will no longer need you for the study, and your
survey will remain entirely anonymous.
After the survey, if you qualify for participation in the study, you will be asked to participate in
one continuous exercise session lasting anywhere from 45-60 minutes. This session will be supervised at
one of the following locations: The Hub Fitness Center, Jim’s Gym in Zink, or the site of a willing
affiliated CrossFit facility. The 7 fitness domains tested during this time will include the following: body
composition through the use of a three-site skinfold assessment, flexibility measured by the sit-and-reach
test, aerobic capacity through the completion of a 3-minute Queens College step test, maximum strength
measured by a 1-repetition maximum performance in the deadlift, agility measured by the pro agility test,
maximum power through the measurement of the standing long jump, and finally muscular endurance in
the form of a push-up test. Each training session will be supervised entirely by the principle investigator
and/or other qualified assistants. All data will be recorded on site of the exercise session, and upon
completion the information will be kept in a locked, secure location. Your individual name and information
will remain confidential and will not be used in the results of this study.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and you have the right to withdraw from this
study at any time by contacting the principle investigator at your own convenience. Let it be noted that your
participation in this study may lead to muscle fatigue similar to fatigue experienced after an average 45-60
minute resistance workout in any facility. The Indiana University of Pennsylvania, along with the principle
investigator and assistants, cannot be held accountable for any injuries sustained during the course of this
study. You are highly advised not to participate if you are not feeling well, or if you are not well rested on
the day of your data collection. If you have any questions regarding any of this information, please do not
hesitate to contact the principle investigator.
71
VOLUNTARY CONSENT FORM:
I have read and understand the information on the form and I consent to volunteer to be a
subject in this study. I understand that there is no compensation for participating. I
understand that all of my data is kept completely confidential and that I have the right to
withdraw at any time. I have received an unsigned copy of this informed consent form to
keep in my possession. I understand and agree to the conditions of this study as
described.
Name: (PLEASE PRINT) _________________________________________________
Signature
________________________________________________________________
Date
____________________________________________________________________
Phone number or location where you can be reached
______________________________
Best days to reach you _____________________________________________________
I certify that I have explained to the above individual the purpose and nature of this
study, the potential benefits, and possible risks associated with participating in this
research study, have answered any questions that have been raised, and have witnessed
the above signature.
_______________
Date
_________________________________________
Investigator’s Signature
This project has been approved by the Indiana University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board for
the Protection of Human Subjects (Phone: 724/357-7730).
72
APPENDIX C
Demographic Survey
73
Demographic Survey
Age?
Email Address?
1. How many days/week do you exercise? (excluding any CrossFit training)
***Cardiovascular?
***Resistance?
2. How long is one of your typical sessions?
***Cardiovascular?
***Resistance?
3. How many minutes/week do you exercise? (#1 x #2)
***Cardiovascular?
***Resistance?
4. Do you participate in CrossFit training?
5. How many days/week do you participate in CrossFit training?
6. How long is one of your typical CrossFit training sessions?
7. How many minutes/week do you participate in CrossFit training? (#5 x #6)
8. How much of your overall time spent in exercise is moderate/vigorous?
***Cardiovascular?
***Resistance?
***CrossFit?
~Moderate = noticeably increased HR and breathing
~Vigorous = substantially increased HR and breathing
9. Please circle one of the following regarding your previous description of
exercise
***I just started exercising like this
***I've been exercising as described for the past 3-6 months
***I've been exercising as described for the past 6 months-1year
***I've been exercising as described for in between 1-2 years
***I've been exercising as described for > 2 years
10. Have you regularly taken performance-enhancing and/or thermogenic
supplementation for more than one consecutive week (3x/week) at any time
in the past 3 months?
***Yes
***No
74
75