Dataset Information

Physiological Predictors of Performance on the CrossFit "Murph" Challenge.

ABSTRACT: We examined physiological predictors of performance on the CrossFit Murph challenge (1-mile run, 100 pullups, 200 pushups, 300 air squats, 1-mile run). Male CrossFit athletes (n = 11, 27 ± 3 years) performed a battery of physical assessments including: (1) body composition, (2) upper and lower body strength, (3) upper body endurance, (4) anaerobic power, and (5) maximal oxygen consumption. No less than 72 h later, participants completed the Murph challenge, heart rate was monitored throughout, and blood lactate was obtained pre-post. Correlations between physiological parameters and total Murph time, and Murph subcomponents, were assessed using Pearson's correlations. Murph completion time was 43.43 ± 4.63 min, and maximum and average heart rate values were 185.63 ± 7.64 bpm and 168.81 ± 6.41 bpm, respectively, and post-Murph blood lactate was 10.01 ± 3.04 mmol/L. Body fat percentage was the only physiological parameter significantly related to total Murph time (r = 0.718; p = 0.013). Total lift time (25.49 ± 3.65 min) was more strongly related (r = 0.88) to Murph time than total run time (17.60 ± 1.97 min; r = 0.65). Greater relative anaerobic power (r = -0.634) and less anaerobic fatigue (r = 0.649) were related to total run time (p < 0.05). Individuals wanting to enhance overall Murph performance are advised to focus on minimizing body fat percentage and improving lift performance. Meanwhile, performance on the run subcomponent may be optimized through improvements in anaerobic power.

SUBMITTER: Carreker JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7404702 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Physiological Predictors of Performance on the CrossFit "Murph" Challenge.

Carreker Ja'Deon D JD Grosicki Gregory J GJ

Sports (Basel, Switzerland) 20200628 7

We examined physiological predictors of performance on the CrossFit Murph challenge (1-mile run, 100 pullups, 200 pushups, 300 air squats, 1-mile run). Male CrossFit athletes (<i>n</i> = 11, 27 ± 3 years) performed a battery of physical assessments including: (1) body composition, (2) upper and lower body strength, (3) upper body endurance, (4) anaerobic power, and (5) maximal oxygen consumption. No less than 72 h later, participants completed the Murph challenge, heart rate was monitored throug ...[more]

PMID: 32605265

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe maximal running speed (VMAX) determined on a graded treadmill test is well-recognized as a running performance predictor. However, few studies have assessed the variables that predict VMAX in recreationally active runners.MethodsWe used a mathematical procedure combining Fick's law and metabolic cost analysis to verify the relation between (1) VMAX versus anthropometric and physiological determinants of running performance and, (2) theoretical metabolic cost versus running biomechanical parameters. Linear multiple regression and bivariate correlation were applied. We aimed to verify the biomechanical, physiological, and anthropometrical determinants of VMAX in recreationally active runners. Fifteen recreationally active runners participated in this observational study. A Conconi and a stead-steady running test were applied using a heart rate monitor and a simple video camera to register the physiological and mechanical variables, respectively.ResultsStatistical analysis revealed that the speed at the second ventilatory threshold, theoretical metabolic cost, and fat-mass percentage confidently estimated the individual running performance as follows: VMAX = 58.632 + (-0.183 * fat percentage) + (-0.507 * heart rate percentage at second ventilatory threshold) + (7.959 * theoretical metabolic cost) (R2 = 0.62, p = 0.011, RMSE = 1.50 km.h-1). Likewise, the theoretical metabolic cost was significantly explained (R2 = 0.91, p = 0.004, RMSE = 0.013 a.u.) by the running spatiotemporal and elastic-related parameters (contact and aerial times, stride length and frequency, and vertical oscillation) as follows: theoretical metabolic cost = 10.421 + (4.282 * contact time) + (-3.795 * aerial time) + (-2.422 * stride length) + (-1.711 * stride frequency) + (0.107 * vertical oscillation).ConclusionCritical determinants of elastic mechanism, such as maximal vertical force and vertical and leg stiffness were unrelated to the metabolic economy. VMAX, a valuable marker of running performance, and its physiological and biomechanical determinants can be effectively evaluated using a heart rate monitor, treadmill, and a digital camera, which can be used in the design of training programs to recreationally active runners.

Project description:Background:It is widely assumed that variation in fitness components has a physiological basis that might underlie selection on trade-offs, but the mechanisms driving decreased survival and future fecundity remain elusive. Here, we assessed whether physiological variables are related to workload ability or immediate fitness consequences and if they mediate future survival or reproductive success. We used data on 13 physiological variables measured in 93 female European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) at two breeding stages (incubation, chick-rearing), for first-and second-broods over two years (152 observations). Results:There was little co-variation among the physiological variables, either in incubating or chick-rearing birds, but some systematic physiological differences between the two stages. Chick-rearing birds had lower hematocrit and plasma creatine kinase but higher hemoglobin, triglyceride and uric acid levels. Only plasma corticosterone was repeatable between incubation and chick-rearing. We assessed relationships between incubation or chick-rearing physiology and measures of workload, current productivity, future fecundity or survival in a univariate manner, and found very few significant relationships. Thus, we next explored the utility of multivariate analysis (principal components analysis, Mahalanobis distance) to account for potentially complex physiological integration, but still found no clear associations. Conclusions:This implies either that a) birds maintained physiological variables within a homeostatic range that did not affect their performance, b) there are relatively few links between physiology and performance, or, more likely, c) that the complexity of these relationships exceeds our ability to measure it. Variability in ecological context may complicate the relationship between physiology and behavior. We thus urge caution regarding the over-interpretation of isolated significant findings, based on single traits in single years, in the literature.

Project description:BackgroundResidency programs select medical students for interviews and employment using metrics such as the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, grade-point average (GPA), and class rank/quartile. It is unclear whether these metrics predict performance as an intern. This study tested the hypothesis that performance on these metrics would predict intern performance.MethodsThis single institution, retrospective cohort analysis included 244 graduates from four classes (2015-2018) who completed an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) certified internship and were evaluated by program directors (PDs) at the end of the year. PDs provided a global assessment rating and ratings addressing ACGME competencies (response rate = 47%) with five response options: excellent = 5, very good = 4, acceptable = 3, marginal = 2, unacceptable = 1. PDs also classified interns as outstanding = 4, above average = 3, average = 2, and below average = 1 relative to other interns from the same residency program. Mean USMLE scores (Step 1 and Step 2CK), third-year GPA, class rank, and core competency ratings were compared using Welch's ANOVA and follow-up pairwise t-tests.ResultsBetter performance on PD evaluations at the end of intern year was associated with higher USMLE Step 1 (p = 0.006), Step 2CK (p = 0.030), medical school GPA (p = 0.020) and class rank (p = 0.016). Interns rated as average had lower USMLE scores, GPA, and class rank than those rated as above average or outstanding; there were no significant differences between above average and outstanding interns. Higher rating in each of the ACGME core competencies was associated with better intern performance (p < 0.01).ConclusionsBetter performance as an intern was associated with higher USMLE scores, medical school GPA and class rank. When USMLE Step 1 reporting changes from numeric scores to pass/fail, residency programs can use other metrics to select medical students for interviews and employment.

Project description:Background: Properly performed training is a matter of importance for endurance athletes (EA). It allows for achieving better results and safer participation. Recently, the development of machine learning methods has been observed in sports diagnostics. Velocity at anaerobic threshold (VAT), respiratory compensation point (VRCP), and maximal velocity (Vmax) are the variables closely corresponding to endurance performance. The primary aims of this study were to find the strongest predictors of VAT, VRCP, Vmax, to derive and internally validate prediction models for males (1) and females (2) under TRIPOD guidelines, and to assess their machine learning accuracy. Materials and Methods: A total of 4001 EA (nmales = 3300, nfemales = 671; age = 35.56 ± 8.12 years; BMI = 23.66 ± 2.58 kg·m−2; VO2max = 53.20 ± 7.17 mL·min−1·kg−1) underwent treadmill cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and bioimpedance body composition analysis. XGBoost was used to select running performance predictors. Multivariable linear regression was applied to build prediction models. Ten-fold cross-validation was incorporated for accuracy evaluation during internal validation. Results: Oxygen uptake, blood lactate, pulmonary ventilation, and somatic parameters (BMI, age, and body fat percentage) showed the highest impact on velocity. For VAT R2 = 0.57 (1) and 0.62 (2), derivation RMSE = 0.909 (1); 0.828 (2), validation RMSE = 0.913 (1); 0.838 (2), derivation MAE = 0.708 (1); 0.657 (2), and validation MAE = 0.710 (1); 0.665 (2). For VRCP R2 = 0.62 (1) and 0.67 (2), derivation RMSE = 1.066 (1) and 0.964 (2), validation RMSE = 1.070 (1) and 0.978 (2), derivation MAE = 0.832 (1) and 0.752 (2), validation MAE = 0.060 (1) and 0.763 (2). For Vmax R2 = 0.57 (1) and 0.65 (2), derivation RMSE = 1.202 (1) and 1.095 (2), validation RMSE = 1.205 (1) and 1.111 (2), derivation MAE = 0.943 (1) and 0.861 (2), and validation MAE = 0.944 (1) and 0.881 (2). Conclusions: The use of machine-learning methods allows for the precise determination of predictors of both submaximal and maximal running performance. Prediction models based on selected variables are characterized by high precision and high repeatability. The results can be used to personalize training and adjust the optimal therapeutic protocol in clinical settings, with a target population of EA.

Dataset Information

Physiological Predictors of Performance on the CrossFit "Murph" Challenge.

Publications

Physiological Predictors of Performance on the CrossFit "Murph" Challenge.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets