Next Article in Journal
Relationship Among Body Mass Index, Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Blood Pressure in Portuguese Children and Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Journal
Strategies for Reducing Suicide at Railroads: A Scoping Review of Evidence and Gaps
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 22
Issue 1
10.3390/ijerph22010019
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

The Effects of CrossFit® Practice on Physical Fitness and Overall Quality of Life

by
Manoel Rios
1,2,*,
David B. Pyne
3 and
Ricardo J. Fernandes
2
1
Superior School of Sport and Education, Jean Piaget Polytechnic Institute of the North, 4405-678 Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal
2
Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport and Porto Biomechanics Laboratory, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal
3
Research Institute for Sport & Exercise, University of Canberra, Canberra 2617, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(1), 19; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22010019
Submission received: 24 November 2024 / Revised: 23 December 2024 / Accepted: 27 December 2024 / Published: 28 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Exercise and Health-Related Quality of Life)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
We have examined the impact of CrossFit® workout sessions on physical fitness, comparing the obtained outcomes with the recommendations of the American College of Sports Medicine. In addition, we provide suggestions to improve training monitoring, as well as practical applications for researchers, coaches and practitioners. CrossFit® imposes high cardiorespiratory and metabolic demands, promoting improvements in circulatory capacity, oxidative metabolism and muscular endurance. Sustained elevations in heart rate contribute to cardiovascular conditioning, while a post-exercise hypotensive effect may help to reduce cardiovascular risks. Structured CrossFit® programs have led to improvements in maximal strength and muscular endurance, with substantial increases in squat performance observed in both untrained and recreationally active individuals. In addition, CrossFit® improves mental health through its motivating community. However, the high metabolic demands, increased creatine kinase levels and reduced performance in the countermovement jump reveal that muscle damage and neuromuscular fatigue can persist for up to 48 h. Balancing these intense sessions with adequate recovery is crucial, as improper management may lead to overtraining and compromise fitness gains. Future research should explore long-term cardiovascular adaptations, differences in gains and recovery between males and females and the application of real-time biomarker and artificial intelligence technologies to improve the training efficiency and safety. Machine learning algorithms could further personalize feedback, adapting to each individual’s biomechanics and physiological responses over time.

1. Introduction

CrossFit® functional fitness programs have quickly become one of the fastest-growing training concepts, with over 15,000 affiliated centers and 5 million participants worldwide [1]. The combination of high-intensity physical benefits and a strong sense of community has driven CrossFit® to unprecedented global popularity. A key factor influencing the adherence and continuation of practice may be psychological factors (like motivation), which encourage participants to engage consistently in exercise [2]. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those with obesity and seemingly healthy participants, are engaged in CrossFit® primarily to enhance their health and exercise status and/or sports performance [2,3]. Like other high-intensity regimens, CrossFit® enhances body composition, muscular strength, cardiorespiratory fitness and discrete health markers [3,4]. Beyond physical benefits, CrossFit® practice can improve participants’ quality of life by influencing factors such as mental, social and functional well-being [2,5]. However, evidence increasingly suggests that the physiological demands of certain CrossFit® workouts, combined with insufficient recovery, may heighten the risk of overload, fatigue and injury [3,6].
CrossFit® workouts consist of high-intensity functional movements, typically combining gymnastics, metabolic conditioning and weightlifting exercises [7,8]. These routines are executed in a circuit format, with minimal rest, aiming for the fastest completion time or the highest number of repetitions over ~2 to 40 min [9,10]. Moreover, the workout of the day combines the development of strength and endurance in both the upper and lower body. By integrating strength exercises with workouts like Isabel, a resistance activity is created that demands both aerobic and anaerobic performance [6,9], recruiting different types of muscle fibers and fostering synergistic potential that can be adapted for hypertrophy goals [11]. In fact, it has been demonstrated that 12 weeks of regular CrossFit® training can elicit a significant increase in maximal strength (~9 to 17%) and improvements in lean mass percentage (+1.05 kg). In addition, the CrossFit® program has been scientifically shown to be effective in reducing body fat (−3.19 kg) [12].
CrossFit® training aims to prepare participants for a wide range of workouts, emphasizing that constant variation is a core element of the methodology [1,8]. In competitions, the requirements for the workout of the day are announced to participants just a few minutes before the event, marking a key distinction from other sports, where athletes typically know in advance which discipline will be performed [8,13]. As in any sport, peak performance in CrossFit® competitive events is achieved only after years of structured training and requires continuous progression that should be carefully monitored throughout the training process [8,13]. To evaluate fitness and monitor changes in work capacity, CrossFit® incorporates benchmark workouts (Table 1), with Cindy and Fran being the most extensively assessed [7,14,15,16,17]. CrossFit® workouts of the day adhere to standardized conditions, ensuring uniform performance comparisons among CrossFitters worldwide. These benchmarks vary in exercise composition, intensity, duration, exercise type and rest intervals [1,14]. Adjusting these variables influences the extent of fitness, performance gains and the risk of overload [1,8]. Some CrossFit® workouts elicit substantial hormonal and metabolic disturbances, coupled with short-term heightened oxidative stress and inflammation [10,18,19].
The original CrossFit® programming consisted of five weekly sessions (typically structured as 5 days of training followed by 2 days of rest, or 3 days of training with 1 day of rest), with most sessions featuring mixed content [20]. This approach, which combines high-intensity interval training methods with strength exercises, challenges the traditional principle of modality separation. However, it is crucial to account for adequate recovery time following high-intensity training, as insufficient recovery may negatively impact adaptive mechanisms [7]. Understanding the intricate relationship between energy availability and exercise-induced fatigue is essential in CrossFit® workouts [14]. High training volumes and frequencies can elevate the risk of premature fatigue, increase the perceived exertion and reduce the movement quality [6,9]. In addition, CrossFitters often report pronounced fatigue, muscle soreness and a restricted range of motion in the 24–48 h post-workout [7,18]. The standardized loads in CrossFit® substantially impact mobility, imposing added stress on the knee, hip and shoulder joints, which heightens the injury risk [6,19]. In addition, understanding the recovery timeline after sessions is crucial to minimize maladaptive responses from inadequate repair between training stimuli, informing effective exercise prescription and monitoring strategies [7,18].
Effective training and adaptation in sports and exercise require monitoring, quantifying and regulating both external and internal training loads [3,21]. However, its management poses a substantial challenge for researchers, coaches and CrossFitters. A substantial part of CrossFit®-related research focuses on identifying performance predictors through conventional laboratory tests [1,22]. However, given its unique nature, traditional testing protocols typically have limited applicability, since their physiological and biomechanical demands differ from those encountered in actual training environments [9,14]. Given that CrossFit® exercises range from ~2 to 40 min, it becomes evident that CrossFitters rely on well-developed aerobic and anaerobic energy pathways [9,14]. Both these energy sources have traditionally been assessed in various laboratory-based cyclical sports using oxygen uptake (VO2) and blood lactate concentrations ([La−]), with the heart rate (HR) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) serving as complementary indicators, especially in practical settings, where costly equipment and complex procedures pose challenges [23].
In the current work, we present physiological responses (using common physiological variables like VO₂, HR, blood pressure and [La−]) to different types of CrossFit® workouts based on assessments conducted in real exercise environments. We also compare these responses with reference values established in the specialized literature for improvements in physical fitness. Concurrently, we also evaluate studies that have assessed changes in movement techniques, psychological well-being and recovery times, providing valuable insights for CrossFit® researchers, coaches, practitioners and people in general that are interested in these specific routines.

2. Physiological Responses on CrossFit®

The varied stimuli in CrossFit® workouts trigger a wide range of biological responses, resulting in a number of acute and chronic physiological adaptations observed in both experienced individuals and beginners [17]. Recent studies have demonstrated that the Fran workout performed at maximal effort, whether in an intermittent [14] or unbroken [7] format, induces high peak VO2 values (~46 to 49 mL∙kg−1∙min−1). Similarly, relevant peak VO2 values (~47 mL∙kg−1∙min−1) were observed in the Isabel workout (which was performed in ~120 s) [9], highlighting the importance of oxidative phosphorylation metabolism also in short-duration workouts. Studies that assessed the maximal and/or peak VO2 through standard treadmill tests in experienced CrossFitters reported values of 48 to 55 mL·kg−1·min−1, aligning closely with the interval displayed for the Fran and Isabel workouts [24,25]. Moreover, sustained HR responses exceeding 90% of its maximum value were observed across varied CrossFit® workouts [26], nearing the levels typical of maximal-intensity exertion (as defined by the American College of Sports Medicine [27]). This exercise intensity may induce both acute and chronic adaptations, contributing to cardiovascular conditioning in CrossFitters (regardless of the session duration) [28].
An increase in HR is associated with a reduction in parasympathetic autonomic stimulation and a rise in sympathetic activity that, during exercise, is triggered by proprioceptors, the baroreceptor reflex and chemoreceptors [29]. Heart rate variability (HRV) is considered a non-invasive and time-efficient physiological marker for autonomic nervous system modulation and is easy to implement and cost-effective [30]. HRV assesses training load adaptations, aiding in control, fatigue detection and training adjustments. The root mean square successive difference in heart period series (RMSSD) curve indices indicate the internal load and reflect distinct responses between individuals [30,31]. A recent study demonstrated reductions in HRV and increases in sympathetic activity after performing the Fran (i.e., RMSSD: 49 vs. 76 ms), Megan (i.e., RMSSD: 49 vs. 72 ms) and Diane (i.e., RMSSD: 54 vs. 68 ms) workouts [31]. In intermittent exercises (like CrossFit®), autonomic modulation varies according to the intensity, implying that a low number of repetitions and moderate to high loads are key factors in cardiovascular stress [31]. Moreover, the additional time under tension resulting from the continuous execution of two or more exercises in a circuit mode, as typical in CrossFit®, has a more pronounced effect on the HRV response [31].
These repercussions for cardiorespiratory-related variables may impact the hemodynamic function of CrossFitters, increasing the hypotensive effect after the workout. In fact, studies have demonstrated a hypotensive effect following different CrossFit® sessions, reducing the acute systolic and diastolic blood pressure, which may reduce underlying cardiovascular risk factors [31,32]. This hypotensive effect may be associated with a cardiac output that is not compensated for by a reduction in peripheral vascular resistance and an increase in sympathetic modulation [31]. In addition, a high volume of repetitions during a workout (like the 90 reps in the Fran routine) can potentiate motor unit recruitment, requiring greater sympathetic nervous system activity and the enhanced activation of mechanoreceptors and baroreceptors induced by mechanical blood flow occlusion [33].
CrossFit® training sessions are often performed at near-maximal or maximal effort, resulting in a very significant metabolic stimulus [3,26]. The intensity of these sessions is usually quantified by assessing [La−], with values frequently exceeding 10 mmol·L−1 [9,26,28]. However, the increase in [La−] may vary depending on the specific CrossFit® routine (like Cindy, Fran or Diane), with the workout volume, intensity and type of exercise as the primary influencing factors [28,34]. High [La−] levels are a key physiological indicator of anaerobic system functions (e.g., recruitment of type II muscle fibers, balance between aerobic and anaerobic metabolism and glycolytic capacity), indicating whether the exercises provide sufficient stimuli to induce adaptations [9,14]. This information is essential in determining the most effective training program for CrossFitters and give fundamental support for coaches to design an optimal training schedule (i.e., predominantly aerobic vs. anaerobic workouts).
Circuit training is widely recognized for its effectiveness in simultaneously improving muscular strength, power, endurance and aerobic and anaerobic fitness—key attributes in CrossFit® [35]. This modality relies on the principles of concurrent training, strategically integrating activities aimed at enhancing endurance (e.g., rowing and running) and strength (e.g., weightlifting and bodyweight exercises) [35]. This systematic approach fosters the balanced development of multiple physical capacities during training sessions. One study showed that, after nine weeks of intervention with a CrossFit®-based program, untrained individuals had significant increases in maximal strength, with improvements in squat (10%) and shoulder press (4%) performance [36]. In addition, another study reported a ~14% increase in the weight lifted during the 5RM front squat after 16 weeks of CrossFit®-based exercise in recreationally active males and females [37].
Considering that strength gains directly contribute to the development of muscular power, and that CrossFit® training programs include Olympic weightlifting exercises (e.g., snatch, clean and their variations) with high external loads and/or high repetition volumes [6], CrossFitters can expect improved power and muscular endurance (factors that can be crucial for muscle hypertrophy) [12]. In fact, following an intervention with a CrossFit® session, substantial improvements in power, muscular endurance and flexibility were reported in both males and females [38,39]. Traditionally, the strength component is prioritized over endurance, as recommended in concurrent training [35,40]. However, the structure of a CrossFit® session is flexible, and this order can be reversed with positive outcomes. The optimal sequence should be determined based on the primary goal, such as maximal strength, power or endurance, allowing workouts to be adjusted for more effective results [35].
It is widely recognized that high-intensity exercise induces acute changes in hormonal levels, including testosterone and cortisol, directly impacting protein synthesis, muscle regeneration and strength gains [41,42]. Testosterone, an anabolic hormone, is essential for protein synthesis, strength adaptation, muscle hypertrophy and psychological preparation for competitions, with transient elevations during exercise potentially increasing the maximal strength and training intensity [41,43]. In contrast, cortisol, a catabolic hormone, responds to stress by mobilizing energy through lipolysis and proteolysis, but elevated levels can inhibit testosterone’s anabolic effects [43]. An acute CrossFit® session can induce marked fluctuations in hormonal profiles, with testosterone levels ranging from ~29 to 23 pg/mL and cortisol levels dropping from ~13 to 8 µg/dL after 48 h of recovery [44]. Over a chronic period of 6 months, male CrossFit® practitioners demonstrated increased testosterone levels (~421 to 564 pg/mL) accompanied by reduced cortisol (~15 to 12 pg/mL) concentrations. Interestingly, this hormonal adaptation was not mirrored in female participants, whose levels remained unchanged [20].
The acute increase in testosterone can be explained by transient strength gains during training and repetitions with maximal effort, which generate additional overload, while the increase in cortisol is influenced by psychological factors, such as the perception of effort [41,45]. High-volume and high-intensity protocols, with short rest intervals between sets, induce more pronounced hormonal changes. This difference can be explained by the distinct neuromuscular, morphological and metabolic actions between the sexes [20,46]. While testosterone exerts its effects in men, estrogen plays a predominant role in women. These hormonal differences affect the muscle composition, with men having greater muscle mass and a higher number of type II fibers, resulting in higher testosterone levels [20,46].

3. Psychological Effects of CrossFit®

Recent studies emphasize the increasing focus on psychological factors in sports, investigating the health benefits of exercise and the mental dynamics that affect athletic performance [2,3,47]. The practice of CrossFit® can improve both physical fitness indicators and participants’ mental health and cognitive performance [2,48,49]. Recent research shows that the motivation to engage in CrossFit® is driven by intrinsic factors such as enjoyment, challenge and affiliation, along with a strong sense of community [50,51]. Self-determination theory explains that fulfilling the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness supports long-term participation, while the scalability of exercises further enhances motivation [48]. In addition, social connection also plays a key role in sustaining engagement in the practice [2].
The communal and motivational nature of CrossFit® is a crucial factor for long-term adherence and in maintaining a positive emotional state, making it an effective alternative to isolated or traditional training, which often lacks social interaction and mutual support [48,50]. The effects of CrossFit® on mood are varied, with some studies indicating negative impacts due to its intensity, while others report improvements in mood after training [2]. The relationship between CrossFit® and psychological health still requires further investigation, particularly in areas such as exercise dependence and body image [52,53]. While training has shown benefits for body image and well-being, few studies have examined its effects on self-esteem [54].
CrossFit® can promote improvements in cognitive domains, such as short-term spatial learning, visual pattern separation and inhibitory control [49,55]. In addition, an acute session of CrossFit® improved working memory in healthy individuals when compared to moderate-intensity aerobic exercise [56]. Although its focus is physical fitness, the physical stress induced during training may have positive effects on brain function by stimulating the production of neurotransmitters (like endorphins and dopamine), which are essential for the learning process and in maintaining motivation [57]. Studies also indicate that intense training can contribute to neuroplasticity, enhancing the brain’s ability to reorganize and form new neural connections, which facilitates adaptation to new challenges and situations [57].

4. Risks and Recovery Challenges

Given the high physiological stress induced by CrossFit® workouts (even without fixed external loads), understanding the post-exercise recovery timeline is essential to optimize CrossFitters’ training [9]. In fact, CrossFit® participants reported a higher RPE and more frequent intense training days per week than what is recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine [58]. Recent cross-sectional studies assessing recovery in experienced CrossFitters using plasma biomarkers (e.g., creatine kinase concentrations) and performance-related tests (e.g., countermovement jump) indicate that individuals often do not fully return to baseline values even 24 h post-workout [7,14,18]. After two consecutive days of competition in CrossFit, a participant showed creatine kinase values of 77,590 U/L three days after the competition [59], accompanied by myalgia and abnormal liver function tests, with levels remaining elevated until the 10th (3034 U/L) and the 25th day (1257 U/L). Creatine kinase concentrations can rise due to exercise-induced muscle damage from intense and prolonged training, remaining elevated for up to 96 h after predominantly eccentric exercises, which extends the required recovery time before engaging in the next training session [60]. In addtion, the significant reduction in countermovement jump ability (i.e., jump height: 8%, peak force: 6% and maximum velocity: 4%) was associated with decreased neuromuscular function [7], particularly affecting type II muscle fibers, which are essential for high-load external resistance training [7]. Coaches and CrossFitters can use this information to better prepare the following exercise session, focusing on different body parts or modifying the intensity to manage their recovery and training load [21].
The association between fatigue and biodynamic movements is especially important in the context of CrossFit® workouts. Olympic weightlifting exercises are an integral part of CrossFit® programming and competing, used in both single-movement focused training sessions (e.g., snatches in the Isabel workout) and metabolic conditioning routines [6,32]. Recent research identified changes in velocity and power production during the Isabel routine, highlighting the impact of high-intensity training on the individual power profile. Despite declines in biomechanical factors (like hip flexion), CrossFitters applied adaptive pacing techniques to maintain high performance levels despite increasing fatigue [6]. With a standardized load (61 kg) and fixed repetitions (30 times) in the Isabel workout, CrossFitters adjust the tempo of contractions to moderate fatigue, reflecting dynamic adjustments in movement mechanics. The primary cause of angular changes appears to be lower limb fatigue, which reduces the bar lift velocity and power during the final phases [6].

5. Future Directions

Future studies on CrossFit® should investigate the long-term cardiovascular health effects of repeated workouts, especially among recreational participants and across different levels of training experience. While acute reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure have been observed following CrossFit® sessions, it remains unclear whether these hypotensive effects persist with long-term participation. In addition, the impact of repeated exposure to high-intensity CrossFit® on the VO2 max, HRV, sympathetic and parasympathetic balance and overall cardiovascular health warrants investigation for multiple reasons, particularly in optimizing training protocols to improve cardiovascular function and aerobic capacity (supporting sustained health benefits). Understanding how different CrossFit® workout types (e.g., metabolic conditioning and strength training) affect VO2 and autonomic regulation will provide insights for the design of physical fitness programs that enhance heart health while minimizing cardiovascular risks.
Furthermore, upcoming research could examine sex-based differences in cardiovascular adaptations, as hormonal influences and the muscle composition may contribute to the distinct responses and recovery requirements in males and females. Recovery strategies after intense CrossFit® sessions also need further investigation to promote both muscular and cardiovascular recovery. Although high-intensity workouts impose considerable metabolic stress and elevate the VO2 levels, there is limited knowledge of how recreational CrossFitters recover from such exertions. Studies should analyze the recovery timeline using biomarkers (e.g., creatine kinase, total antioxidant status and malondialdehyde) and functional performance tests (e.g., countermovement jumps and prone planks) to develop effective strategies that support muscle function and cardiovascular recovery. These insights could aid in injury prevention, promote optimal recovery and support long-term physical activity (ultimately contributing to overall health).
Integrating advanced technologies like surface electromyography and artificial intelligence for real-time physiological and biomechanical data analysis (e.g., muscle activation patterns, kinematics and kinetics) will enable wearable devices to provide immediate feedback, optimizing performance and movement quality. By capturing joint angles, limb velocities and muscle forces, these devices could help CrossFitters to correct inefficient movement patterns, reducing the injury risk and enhancing the training effectiveness. Up-to-date technologies have the potential to democratize sophisticated data analytics, bringing insights previously limited to research and high-performance settings to all CrossFit® practitioners. Machine learning algorithms could further personalize feedback, adapting the advice to each individual’s biomechanics and physiological responses over time. This approach could improve the training safety and effectiveness by offering real-time customized guidance aligned with each participant’s biomechanics and conditioning level.

6. Practical Applications

CrossFit® workouts have a wide variety of practical applications in enhancing physical fitness through high-intensity exercises that stimulate both aerobic and anaerobic adaptations. Studies show that performing these exercises at maximum effort can elevate the peak VO2 and HR close to maximal levels, strengthening the cardiovascular capacity and oxidative metabolism. Sustained HR responses align with typical endurance training, fostering cardiovascular health. The high-repetition nature of these workouts aids in muscle recruitment, increasing motor unit activation and enhancing neuromuscular coordination. CrossFit® sessions also generate a hypotensive effect, with post-exercise blood pressure reductions that may mitigate cardiovascular risks. The metabolic demands of these workouts, often indicated by high [La−], effectively challenge anaerobic systems, promoting muscular endurance. The combination of strength and endurance exercises promotes balanced progress in various physical abilities, making it essential to structure CrossFit® sessions according to the primary goal(s). In contrast, consistent participation necessitates strategic recovery planning due to prolonged fatigue and muscle damage, guiding CrossFitters and coaches in optimizing the training intensity and scheduling.

7. Conclusions

CrossFit® workouts are effective in enhancing physical fitness, as evidenced by their superior cardiorespiratory, metabolic, maximal strength and muscular endurance responses compared to moderate-intensity exercises. CrossFit® not only improves physical fitness but also enhances mental health and cognitive performance through its communal motivating environment. However, the substantial increases in biochemical marker concentrations, metabolic stress and perceived exertion, along with the decrease in the countermovement jump test post-workout performance, underscore the importance of proper recovery between sessions. These findings emphasize the need to carefully manage training loads and recovery strategies to optimize performance, prevent overtraining and ensure sustained improvements in fitness and overall health.

Author Contributions

M.R.: writing—original draft; M.R., D.B.P. and R.J.F.: writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by national funding from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. (FCT) and the European Union (EU) under project/support UIDB/05913/2020—Centre for Research, Education, Innovation, and Intervention in Sport (https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/05913/2020).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Meier, N.; Schlie, J.; Schmidt, A. CrossFit(®): ‘Unknowable’ or Predictable?—A Systematic Review on Predictors of CrossFit(®) Performance. Sports 2023, 11, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dominski, F.H.; Serafim, T.T.; Siqueira, T.C.; Andrade, A. Psychological variables of CrossFit participants: A systematic review. Sport Sci. Health 2021, 17, 21–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Claudino, J.G.; Gabbett, T.J.; Bourgeois, F.; Souza, H.S.; Miranda, R.C.; Mezêncio, B.; Soncin, R.; Cardoso Filho, C.A.; Bottaro, M.; Hernandez, A.J.; et al. CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med. Open 2018, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Brisebois, M.F.; Rigby, B.R.; Nichols, D.L. Physiological and Fitness Adaptations after Eight Weeks of High-Intensity Functional Training in Physically Inactive Adults. Sports 2018, 6, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cansler, R.; Heidrich, J.; Whiting, A.; Tran, D.; Hall, P.; Tyler, W.J. Influence of CrossFit and Deep End Fitness training on mental health and coping in athletes. Front. Sports Act. Living 2023, 5, 1061492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rios, M.; Cardoso, R.; Fonseca, P.; Vilas-Boas, J.P.; Reis, V.M.; Moreira-Gonçalves, D.; Fernandes, R.J. Biomechanical Characterization of the CrossFit® Isabel Workout: A Cross-Sectional Study. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 6895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rios, M.; Becker, K.M.; Monteiro, A.S.; Fonseca, P.; Pyne, D.B.; Reis, V.M.; Moreira-Gonçalves, D.; Fernandes, R.J. Effect of the Fran CrossFit Workout on Oxygen Uptake Kinetics, Energetics, and Postexercise Muscle Function in Trained CrossFitters. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2024, 19, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Martinho, D.V.; Rebelo, A.; Gouveia, É.R.; Field, A.; Costa, R.; Ribeiro, A.S.; Casonatto, J.; Amorim, C.; Sarmento, H. The physical demands and physiological responses to CrossFit®: A scoping review with evidence gap map and meta-correlation. BMJ Open Sports Exerc. Med. 2024, 16, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rios, M.; Becker, K.M.; Cardoso, F.; Pyne, D.B.; Reis, V.M.; Moreira-Gonçalves, D.; Fernandes, R.J. Assessment of Cardiorespiratory and Metabolic Contributions in an Extreme Intensity CrossFit(®) Benchmark Workout. Sensors 2024, 24, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Rios, M.; Macan, T.; Stevanović-Silva, J.; Nhusawi, K.; Fernandes, R.J.; Beleza, J.; Ascensão, A.; Magalhães, J. Acute CrossFit® workout session impacts blood redox marker modulation. Physiologia 2021, 1, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Schoenfeld, B.J.; Peterson, M.D.; Ogborn, D.; Contreras, B.; Sonmez, G.T. Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 2954–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kapsis, D.P.; Tsoukos, A.; Psarraki, M.P.; Douda, H.T.; Smilios, I.; Bogdanis, G.C. Changes in Body Composition and Strength after 12 Weeks of High-Intensity Functional Training with Two Different Loads in Physically Active Men and Women: A Randomized Controlled Study. Sports 2022, 10, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tibana, R.A.; Dominski, F.H.; Andrade, A.; De Sousa, N.M.F.; Voltarelli, F.A.; Neto, I.V.S. Exploring the relationship between Total Athleticism score and CrossFit® Open Performance in amateur athletes: Single measure involving body fat percentage, aerobic capacity, muscle power and local muscle endurance. Eur. J. Transl. Myol. 2024, 34, 12309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rios, M.; Zacca, R.; Azevedo, R.; Fonseca, P.; Pyne, D.B.; Reis, V.M.; Moreira-Gonçalves, D.; Fernandes, R.J. Bioenergetic Analysis and Fatigue Assessment During the Fran Workout in Experienced Crossfitters. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2023, 18, 786–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Rios, M.; Reis, V.M.; Soares, S.; Moreira-Gonçalves, D.; Fernandes, R.J. Pros and Cons of Two Methods of Anaerobic Alactic Energy Assessment in a High-Intensity CrossFit® Workout. Oxygen 2022, 2, 621–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Forte, L.D.M.; Freire, Y.G.C.; Júnior, J.; Melo, D.A.; Meireles, C.L.S. Physiological responses after two different CrossFit workouts. Biol. Sport 2022, 39, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Leitão, L.; Dias, M.; Campos, Y.; Vieira, J.G.; Sant’Ana, L.; Telles, L.G.; Tavares, C.; Mazini, M.; Novaes, J.; Vianna, J. Physical and Physiological Predictors of FRAN CrossFit(®) WOD Athlete’s Performance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. de Sousa Neto, I.V.; de Sousa, N.M.F.; Neto, F.R.; Falk Neto, J.H.; Tibana, R.A. Time Course of Recovery Following CrossFit(®) Karen Benchmark Workout in Trained Men. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 899652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tibana, R.A.; de Sousa, N.M.F. Are extreme conditioning programmes effective and safe? A narrative review of high-intensity functional training methods research paradigms and findings. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2018, 4, e000435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Poderoso, R.; Cirilo-Sousa, M.; Júnior, A.; Novaes, J.; Vianna, J.; Dias, M.; Leitão, L.; Reis, V.; Neto, N.; Vilaça-Alves, J. Gender Differences in Chronic Hormonal and Immunological Responses to CrossFit(®). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Foster, C.; Rodriguez-Marroyo, J.A.; De Koning, J.J. Monitoring training loads: The past, the present, and the future. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2017, 12, S2-2–S2-8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Meier, N.; Rabel, S.; Schmidt, A. Determination of a CrossFit(®) Benchmark Performance Profile. Sports 2021, 9, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lopes, A.M.; Rios, M.; Beleza, J.; Carvalho, D.D.; Monteiro, S.; Montanha, T.; Martins, S.; Guimarães, J.T.; Fernandes, R.J.; Magalhães, J.; et al. Adding protein to a carbohydrate pre-exercise beverage does not influence running performance and metabolism. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 2023, 63, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Butcher, S.J.; Neyedly, T.J.; Horvey, K.J.; Benko, C.R. Do physiological measures predict selected CrossFit® benchmark performance? Open Access J. Sports Med. 2015, 6, 241–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dexheimer, J.; Schroeder, E.; Sawyer, B.; Pettitt, R.; Aguinaldo, A.; Torrence, W. Physiological Performance Measures as Indicators of CrossFit® Performance. Sports 2019, 7, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. McDougle, J.M.; Mangine, G.T.; Townsend, J.R.; Jajtner, A.R.; Feito, Y. Acute physiological outcomes of high-intensity functional training: A scoping review. PeerJ 2023, 11, e14493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Garber, C.E.; Blissmer, B.; Deschenes, M.R.; Franklin, B.A.; Lamonte, M.J.; Lee, I.M.; Nieman, D.C.; Swain, D.P. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: Guidance for prescribing exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011, 43, 1334–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tibana, R.A.; De Sousa, N.M.F.; Prestes, J.; Voltarelli, F.A. Lactate, Heart Rate and Rating of Perceived Exertion Responses to Shorter and Longer Duration CrossFit(®) Training Sessions. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2018, 3, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Timón, R.; Olcina, G.; Camacho-Cardeñosa, M.; Camacho-Cardenosa, A.; Martinez-Guardado, I.; Marcos-Serrano, M. 48-hour recovery of biochemical parameters and physical performance after two modalities of CrossFit workouts. Biol. Sport 2019, 36, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Le Meur, Y.; Buchheit, M.; Aubry, A.; Coutts, A.J.; Hausswirth, C. Assessing overreaching with heart-rate recovery: What is the minimal exercise intensity required? Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2017, 12, 569–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barreto, A.C.; Medeiros, A.P.; da Silva Araujo, G.; de Souza Vale, R.G.; Vianna, J.M.; Alkimin, R.; Serra, R.; Leitão, L.; Reis, V.M.M.; da Silva Novaes, J. Heart rate variability and blood pressure during and after three CrossFit® sessions. Retos 2023, 47, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tibana, R.A.; Almeida, L.M.; de Sousa Neto, I.V.; de Sousa, N.M.F.; de Almeida, J.A.; de Salles, B.F.; Bentes, C.M.; Prestes, J.; Collier, S.R.; Voltarelli, F.A. Extreme Conditioning Program Induced Acute Hypotensive Effects are Independent of the Exercise Session Intensity. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. 2017, 10, 1165–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Prado Dantas, T.S.; Aidar, F.J.; de Souza, R.F.; de Matos Gama, D.; Pires Ferreira, A.R.; de Almeida Barros, N.; Matos dos Santos, M.D.; Oliveira Barros, G.; Rodrigues Santos, C.R.; da Silva Júnior, W.M. Evaluation of a CrossFit® Session on Post-Exercise Blood Pressure. J. Exerc. Physiol. Online 2018, 21, 44–51. [Google Scholar]
  34. Cardoso, R.; Rios, M.; Fonseca, P.; Leão, J.; Cardoso, F.; Abraldes, J.A.A.; Gomes, B.B.; Vilas-Boas, J.P.; Fernandes, R.J. Assessment of Angular and Straight Linear Rowing Ergometers at Different Intensities of Exercise. Sensors 2024, 24, 5686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schlegel, P. CrossFit® Training Strategies from the Perspective of Concurrent Training: A Systematic Review. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2020, 19, 670–680. [Google Scholar]
  36. Crawford, D.A.; Drake, N.B.; Carper, M.J.; DeBlauw, J.; Heinrich, K.M. Are Changes in Physical Work Capacity Induced by High-Intensity Functional Training Related to Changes in Associated Physiologic Measures? Sports 2018, 6, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Feito, Y.; Hoffstetter, W.; Serafini, P.; Mangine, G. Changes in body composition, bone metabolism, strength, and skill-specific performance resulting from 16-weeks of HIFT. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cosgrove, S.J.; Crawford, D.A.; Heinrich, K.M. Multiple Fitness Improvements Found after 6-Months of High Intensity Functional Training. Sports 2019, 7, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Falk Neto, J.H.; Kennedy, M.D. The Multimodal Nature of High-Intensity Functional Training: Potential Applications to Improve Sport Performance. Sports 2019, 7, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Doma, K.; Deakin, G.B.; Bentley, D.J. Implications of impaired endurance performance following single bouts of resistance training: An alternate concurrent training perspective. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 2187–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Jacob, N.; Novaes, J.S.; Behm, D.G.; Vieira, J.G.; Dias, M.R.; Vianna, J.M. Characterization of Hormonal, Metabolic, and Inflammatory Responses in CrossFit® Training: A Systematic Review. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Tremblay, M.S.; Copeland, J.L.; Van Helder, W. Effect of training status and exercise mode on endogenous steroid hormones in men. J. Appl. Physiol. 2004, 96, 531–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Mangine, G.T.; Van Dusseldorp, T.A.; Feito, Y.; Holmes, A.J.; Serafini, P.R.; Box, A.G.; Gonzalez, A.M. Testosterone and Cortisol Responses to Five High-Intensity Functional Training Competition Workouts in Recreationally Active Adults. Sports 2018, 6, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Tibana, R.A.; Prestes, J.; de Sousa, N.M.F.; de Souza, V.C.; de Tolêdo Nobrega, O.; Baffi, M.; Ferreira, C.E.S.; Cunha, G.V.; Navalta, J.W.; Trombeta, J.; et al. Time-Course of Changes in Physiological, Psychological, and Performance Markers following a Functional-Fitness Competition. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. 2019, 12, 904–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Mangine, G.T.; Kliszczewicz, B.M.; Boone, J.B.; Williamson-Reisdorph, C.M.; Bechke, E.E. Pre-Anticipatory Anxiety and Autonomic Nervous System Response to Two Unique Fitness Competition Workouts. Sports 2019, 7, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kraemer, W.J.; Ratamess, N.A. Hormonal responses and adaptations to resistance exercise and training. Sports Med. 2005, 35, 339–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Spindler, D.J.; Allen, M.S.; Vella, S.A.; Swann, C. The psychology of elite cycling: A systematic review. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 36, 1943–1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dominski, F.H.; Matias, T.S.; Serafim, T.T.; Feito, Y. Motivation to CrossFit training: A narrative review. Sport Sci. Health 2020, 16, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ben-Zeev, T.; Okun, E. High-Intensity Functional Training: Molecular Mechanisms and Benefits. Neuromol. Med. 2021, 23, 335–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Davies, M.J.; Coleman, L.; Babkes Stellino, M. The relationship between basic psychological need satisfaction, behavioral regulation, and participation in CrossFit. J. Sport Behav. 2016, 39, 239. [Google Scholar]
  51. Whiteman-Sandland, J.; Hawkins, J.; Clayton, D. The role of social capital and community belongingness for exercise adherence: An exploratory study of the CrossFit gym model. J. Health Psychol. 2018, 23, 1545–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Coyne, P.; Woodruff, S.J. Examining the influence of CrossFit participation on body image, self-esteem, and eating behaviours among women. J. Phys. Educ. Sport Manag. 2020, 20, 1314–1325. [Google Scholar]
  53. Swami, V. Is CrossFit associated with more positive body image? A prospective investigation in novice CrossFitters. 2019, 50, 370–381. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang, Z.; Yang, R.; Sun, G.; Wang, Y. Impact of CrossFit Training Programs on the Physical Health and Sociogenic Somatic Anxiety of Adolescents. Iran. J. Public Health 2024, 53, 1588–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ben-Zeev, T.; Hirsh, T.; Weiss, I.; Gornstein, M.; Okun, E. The effects of high-intensity functional training (HIFT) on spatial learning, visual pattern separation and attention span in adolescents. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2020, 14, 577390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wilke, J. Functional high-intensity exercise is more effective in acutely increasing working memory than aerobic walking: An exploratory randomized, controlled trial. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Basso, J.C.; Suzuki, W.A. The Effects of Acute Exercise on Mood, Cognition, Neurophysiology, and Neurochemical Pathways: A Review. Brain Plast. 2017, 2, 127–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Drum, S.N.; Bellovary, B.N.; Jensen, R.L.; Moore, M.T.; Donath, L. Perceived demands and postexercise physical dysfunction in CrossFit® compared to an ACSM based training session. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2017, 57, 604–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Tibana, R.A.; Sousa, N.M.F.; Cunha, G.V.; Prestes, J.; Navalta, J.W.; Voltarelli, F.A. Exertional Rhabdomyolysis after an Extreme Conditioning Competition: A Case Report. Sports 2018, 6, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Baird, M.F.; Graham, S.M.; Baker, J.S.; Bickerstaff, G.F. Creatine-kinase- and exercise-related muscle damage implications for muscle performance and recovery. J. Nutr. Metab. 2012, 2012, 960363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. A comprehensive overview of the exercises and structural elements inherent in CrossFit® benchmark workouts.
Table 1. A comprehensive overview of the exercises and structural elements inherent in CrossFit® benchmark workouts.
CrossFit® Benchmark Workouts Known as the Girls
Exclusively bodyweight movementsCindy
As many rounds and repetitions as possible
(for 20 min)
Five pull-ups
10 push-ups
15 air squats		Chelsea
One full round every min
(for 30 min)
Five pull-ups
10 push-ups
15 air squats		Barbara
5 rounds
(for time)
20 pull-ups
30 push-ups
40 sit-ups
50 air squats
Incorporating bodyweight movements plus wall balls and/or kettlebellKelly
Five rounds
(for time)
400-m run
30 box jumps (24/20)
30 wall ball shots (20/14 lb)		Helen
Three rounds
(for Time)
400-m run
21 kettlebell swings
12 pull-ups		Eva
Five rounds
(for time)
800-m run
30 kettlebell swings
30 pull-ups
Incorporating a combination of barbell plus calisthenics movementsFran
21-15-9
(repetitions for time)
Thrusters (95/65 lb)
Pull-ups		Jackie
(for time)
1000-m row
50 thrusters (45/35 lb)
30 pull-ups		Amanda
9-7-5
(repetitions for time)
Muscle-ups
Squat snatches (135/95 lb)
Intensive barbell workouts with heavy weightsIsabel
(for time)
30 snatches (135/95 lb)		Grace
(for time)
30 clean and jerks (135/95 lb)		Linda
10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
(repetitions for time)
Deadlift (1½ bodyweight)
Bench press (bodyweight)
Clean (¾ bodyweight)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rios, M.; Pyne, D.B.; Fernandes, R.J. The Effects of CrossFit® Practice on Physical Fitness and Overall Quality of Life. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22010019

AMA Style

Rios M, Pyne DB, Fernandes RJ. The Effects of CrossFit® Practice on Physical Fitness and Overall Quality of Life. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2025; 22(1):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22010019

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rios, Manoel, David B. Pyne, and Ricardo J. Fernandes. 2025. "The Effects of CrossFit® Practice on Physical Fitness and Overall Quality of Life" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 22, no. 1: 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22010019

APA Style

Rios, M., Pyne, D. B., & Fernandes, R. J. (2025). The Effects of CrossFit® Practice on Physical Fitness and Overall Quality of Life. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22010019

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop