The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit ® Athletes: An Agreement Study

Tomás Ponce-García, Javier Benítez-Porres, Jerónimo Carmelo García-Romero, Alejandro Castillo-Domínguez and José Ramón Alvero-Cruz
Additional contact information
Tomás Ponce-García: Department of Human Physiology, Histology, Pathological Anatomy and Sports Physical Education, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain
Javier Benítez-Porres: Department of Human Physiology, Histology, Pathological Anatomy and Sports Physical Education, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain
Jerónimo Carmelo García-Romero: Department of Human Physiology, Histology, Pathological Anatomy and Sports Physical Education, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain
Alejandro Castillo-Domínguez: Department of Nursing and Podiatry, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain
José Ramón Alvero-Cruz: Department of Human Physiology, Histology, Pathological Anatomy and Sports Physical Education, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 16, 1-12

Abstract: Anaerobic power and capacity are considered determinants of performance and are usually assessed in athletes as a part of their physical capacities’ evaluation along the season. For that purpose, many field tests have been created. The main objective of this study was to analyze the agreement between four field tests and a laboratory test. Nineteen CrossFit ® (CF) athletes were recruited for this study (28.63 ± 6.62 years) who had been practicing CF for at least one year. Tests performed were: (1) Anaerobic Squat Test at 60% of bodyweight (AST60); (2) Anaerobic Squat Test at 70% of bodyweight (AST70); (3) Repeated Jump Test (RJT); (4) Assault Bike Test (ABT); and (5) Wingate Anaerobic Test on a cycle ergometer (WG). All tests consisted of 30 s of max effort. The differences among methods were tested using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size. Agreement between methods was performed using Bland–Altman analysis. Analysis of agreement showed systematic bias in all field test PP values, which varied between ?110.05 (AST60 PP —WG PP ) and 463.58 (ABT PP —WG PP ), and a significant proportional error in ABT PP by rank correlation ( p < 0.001). Repeated-measures ANOVA showed significant differences among PP values ( F (1.76,31.59) = 130.61, p =< 0.001). In conclusion, since to our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the agreement between various methods to estimate anaerobic power in CF athletes. Apart from ABT, all tests showed good agreement and can be used interchangeably in CF athletes. Our results suggest that AST and RJT are good alternatives for measuring the anaerobic power in CF athletes when access to a laboratory is not possible.

Keywords: anaerobic power; peak power; HIFT, high-intensity functional training; crossfit; athletes; field test (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8878/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8878/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8878-:d:619941

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().