The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness · 2026
A critical commentary on CrossFit Research® with coach insights on training monitoring and physical assessment.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Martinho Diogo V, Costa Renato, VAN DEN Hoek Daniel, Clemente Filipe M, Gonzalo-Skok Oliver, Gouveia Élvio R, Campos Pedro, Ribeiro Alex S, Field Adam, Sarmento Hugo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: CrossFit® has experienced rapid global growth, yet scientific research often fails to reflect the realities of training and competition in this sport. Studies frequently rely on inconsistent terminology, non-specific testing protocols, and heterogeneous samples, limiting the ecological validity and practical application of findings. This critical commentary aims to evaluate the methodological challenges in CrossFit® research and to highlight the importance of contextualizing scientific inquiry through the perspectives of coaches actively working within the sport.
METHODS: A targeted review of the CrossFit® literature was conducted, with a focus on sampling descriptions, testing protocols, and training monitoring approaches. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with five national and international-level CrossFit® coaches. Analysis of coach responses was used to contextualize gaps in the literature.
RESULTS: Coaches reported relying primarily on competition results, training observations, and subjective feedback to guide programming, rather than standardized physical testing or technology-based monitoring. The remote nature of many coach-athlete relationships further complicates data collection and training analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: CrossFit® research must improve its methodological rigor by adopting sport-specific assessments, clearly defining participant characteristics, and embracing the realities of coaching practice. Integrating qualitative insights and prioritizing ecological validity will help bridge the gap between science and the sport's unique demands.
METHODS: A targeted review of the CrossFit® literature was conducted, with a focus on sampling descriptions, testing protocols, and training monitoring approaches. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with five national and international-level CrossFit® coaches. Analysis of coach responses was used to contextualize gaps in the literature.
RESULTS: Coaches reported relying primarily on competition results, training observations, and subjective feedback to guide programming, rather than standardized physical testing or technology-based monitoring. The remote nature of many coach-athlete relationships further complicates data collection and training analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: CrossFit® research must improve its methodological rigor by adopting sport-specific assessments, clearly defining participant characteristics, and embracing the realities of coaching practice. Integrating qualitative insights and prioritizing ecological validity will help bridge the gap between science and the sport's unique demands.