Muscular performance analysis in “cross” modalities: comparison between “AMRAP,” “EMOM” and “RFT” configurations
Introduction: In recent years, a surge of interest in high-intensity training methods, associated with “cross” modalities has emerged as a promising approach for improving performance and overall health. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to compare the acute effects on heart rate, mean propu...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2024-03-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Physiology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2024.1358191/full |
| _version_ | 1797276749404307456 |
|---|---|
| author | Manuel Barba-Ruíz Francisco Hermosilla-Perona Francisco Hermosilla-Perona Juan Ramon Heredia-Elvar Noelia Gómez-González Marzo Edir Da Silva-Grigoletto Diego Muriarte-Solana |
| author_facet | Manuel Barba-Ruíz Francisco Hermosilla-Perona Francisco Hermosilla-Perona Juan Ramon Heredia-Elvar Noelia Gómez-González Marzo Edir Da Silva-Grigoletto Diego Muriarte-Solana |
| author_sort | Manuel Barba-Ruíz |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction: In recent years, a surge of interest in high-intensity training methods, associated with “cross” modalities has emerged as a promising approach for improving performance and overall health. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to compare the acute effects on heart rate, mean propulsive velocity and intra and inter-set velocity loss in “Cross” modalities.Materials and methods: Twelve athletes, 10 men’s and 2 women’s (age: 31.5 ± 6.74 years; height: 174.17 ± 6.05 cm; weight: 75.34 ± 7.16 kg) with at least 1 year of experience in “cross” training. The participants performed three different “cross” modalities, Rounds for Time (RFT), Every Minute on the Minute (EMOM) and As Many Rounds As Possible (AMRAP) across three separate days. In each modality participants carried out 10 repetitions of squat, pull-ups, and shoulder press with difference rates of work-rest. Mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and heart rate (HR) were recorded and analysed for each athlete. Repeated measures one-way ANOVA and repeated measures two-way ANOVA were performed to analyse the differences between modalities and subjects. Besides, a Bonferroni post hoc analysis was carried out to assess the differences between modalities in each subject.Results: Significant differences in MPV were observed among the modalities. The comparisons between RFT and AMRAP, as well as EMOM and AMRAP, revealed lower MPV in the AMRAP modality (p < 0.01). RFT exhibited the greatest intra-set velocity loss, while EMOM showed the least, with significant distinctions (p < 0.01) between them. Furthermore, significant differences in the HR results were noted among all modalities (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Findings consistently identify the AMRAP modality as having the lowest MPV values due to its prolonged duration, promoting self-regulated tempo for optimal performance and technique, while the RFT modality exhibits higher fatigue and intra-set MPV losses. These insights into propulsive velocity, intensity, fatigue, and pacing across various “Cross” modalities provide valuable guidance for athletes and trainers seeking to enhance their exercise programs. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T15:32:40Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-784145eb6bc54a67ac6b38428e0a68bd |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-042X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T15:32:40Z |
| publishDate | 2024-03-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Physiology |
| spelling | doaj.art-784145eb6bc54a67ac6b38428e0a68bd2024-03-05T16:02:32ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Physiology1664-042X2024-03-011510.3389/fphys.2024.13581911358191Muscular performance analysis in “cross” modalities: comparison between “AMRAP,” “EMOM” and “RFT” configurationsManuel Barba-Ruíz0Francisco Hermosilla-Perona1Francisco Hermosilla-Perona2Juan Ramon Heredia-Elvar3Noelia Gómez-González4Marzo Edir Da Silva-Grigoletto5Diego Muriarte-Solana6Department of Physical Activity and Sports Science, Alfonso X El Sabio University, Madrid, SpainDepartment of Physical Activity and Sports Science, Alfonso X El Sabio University, Madrid, SpainFacultad de Ciencias de la Vida y la Naturaleza, Universidad Nebrija, Madrid, SpainDepartment of Physical Activity and Sports Science, Alfonso X El Sabio University, Madrid, SpainDepartment of Physical Activity and Sports Science, Alfonso X El Sabio University, Madrid, SpainDepartment of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, BrazilDepartment of Physical Activity and Sports Science, Alfonso X El Sabio University, Madrid, SpainIntroduction: In recent years, a surge of interest in high-intensity training methods, associated with “cross” modalities has emerged as a promising approach for improving performance and overall health. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to compare the acute effects on heart rate, mean propulsive velocity and intra and inter-set velocity loss in “Cross” modalities.Materials and methods: Twelve athletes, 10 men’s and 2 women’s (age: 31.5 ± 6.74 years; height: 174.17 ± 6.05 cm; weight: 75.34 ± 7.16 kg) with at least 1 year of experience in “cross” training. The participants performed three different “cross” modalities, Rounds for Time (RFT), Every Minute on the Minute (EMOM) and As Many Rounds As Possible (AMRAP) across three separate days. In each modality participants carried out 10 repetitions of squat, pull-ups, and shoulder press with difference rates of work-rest. Mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and heart rate (HR) were recorded and analysed for each athlete. Repeated measures one-way ANOVA and repeated measures two-way ANOVA were performed to analyse the differences between modalities and subjects. Besides, a Bonferroni post hoc analysis was carried out to assess the differences between modalities in each subject.Results: Significant differences in MPV were observed among the modalities. The comparisons between RFT and AMRAP, as well as EMOM and AMRAP, revealed lower MPV in the AMRAP modality (p < 0.01). RFT exhibited the greatest intra-set velocity loss, while EMOM showed the least, with significant distinctions (p < 0.01) between them. Furthermore, significant differences in the HR results were noted among all modalities (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Findings consistently identify the AMRAP modality as having the lowest MPV values due to its prolonged duration, promoting self-regulated tempo for optimal performance and technique, while the RFT modality exhibits higher fatigue and intra-set MPV losses. These insights into propulsive velocity, intensity, fatigue, and pacing across various “Cross” modalities provide valuable guidance for athletes and trainers seeking to enhance their exercise programs.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2024.1358191/fulltrainingstrengthsquatpacingfatiguecross |
| spellingShingle | Manuel Barba-Ruíz Francisco Hermosilla-Perona Francisco Hermosilla-Perona Juan Ramon Heredia-Elvar Noelia Gómez-González Marzo Edir Da Silva-Grigoletto Diego Muriarte-Solana Muscular performance analysis in “cross” modalities: comparison between “AMRAP,” “EMOM” and “RFT” configurations Frontiers in Physiology training strength squat pacing fatigue cross |
| title | Muscular performance analysis in “cross” modalities: comparison between “AMRAP,” “EMOM” and “RFT” configurations |
| title_full | Muscular performance analysis in “cross” modalities: comparison between “AMRAP,” “EMOM” and “RFT” configurations |
| title_fullStr | Muscular performance analysis in “cross” modalities: comparison between “AMRAP,” “EMOM” and “RFT” configurations |
| title_full_unstemmed | Muscular performance analysis in “cross” modalities: comparison between “AMRAP,” “EMOM” and “RFT” configurations |
| title_short | Muscular performance analysis in “cross” modalities: comparison between “AMRAP,” “EMOM” and “RFT” configurations |
| title_sort | muscular performance analysis in cross modalities comparison between amrap emom and rft configurations |
| topic | training strength squat pacing fatigue cross |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2024.1358191/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT manuelbarbaruiz muscularperformanceanalysisincrossmodalitiescomparisonbetweenamrapemomandrftconfigurations AT franciscohermosillaperona muscularperformanceanalysisincrossmodalitiescomparisonbetweenamrapemomandrftconfigurations AT franciscohermosillaperona muscularperformanceanalysisincrossmodalitiescomparisonbetweenamrapemomandrftconfigurations AT juanramonherediaelvar muscularperformanceanalysisincrossmodalitiescomparisonbetweenamrapemomandrftconfigurations AT noeliagomezgonzalez muscularperformanceanalysisincrossmodalitiescomparisonbetweenamrapemomandrftconfigurations AT marzoedirdasilvagrigoletto muscularperformanceanalysisincrossmodalitiescomparisonbetweenamrapemomandrftconfigurations AT diegomuriartesolana muscularperformanceanalysisincrossmodalitiescomparisonbetweenamrapemomandrftconfigurations |