ReviewJournal of human kinetics2026
Biomechanical and Physiological Demands of CrossFit: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of human kinetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CrossFit's popularity has increased as an effective training program for physical fitness. The volume of published literature suggests a continuous effort to understand and optimize CrossFit training protocols. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze scientific literature findings related to CrossFit's biomechanical and physiological demands via a systematic review. Systematic searches were conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and SciELO databases for articles reporting the effects of CrossFit training. Following the PRISMA guidelines, nineteen studies (n = 537 participants) examined the use of biomechanical and/or physiological variables in CrossFit performance. This review considered the one-repetition maximum, the countermovement jump, peak power, and movement technique as biomechanical variables most often used in literature. The physiological variables included blood lactate, maximal oxygen uptake, heart rate variability, and the rating of perceived exertion. These variables accurately measured strength, aerobic and anaerobic capacity, along with fatigue in training sessions and competitions. CrossFit training was shown to improve maximal oxygen uptake, muscle strength, hypertrophy, and muscular endurance while also inducing physiological stress. Strength and power variables correlated strongly with CrossFit performance, but movement technique and postural control also played significant roles. The combination of aerobic and anaerobic elements within CrossFit enhanced cardiovascular fitness and anaerobic capacity, reinforcing effectiveness when appropriately managed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.