“Cross” modalities: are the AMRAP, RFT and EMOM models applicable to health?

Acute effect of three functional fitness training designs with equalized load on inexperienced and experienced athletes

Background

In the realm of functional fitness training (FFT), three common circuits-as many repetitions or round as possible (AMRAP), for time (FT), and every minute on a minute (EMOM)-are prevalent. We aimed to elucidate the immediate impacts on athletes, considering the experience, when performing three workout modalities with matched training loads.

Methods

Twenty-five healthy men and women, with at least three months of experience in FFT, were allocated into the Inexperienced group (IG) and Experienced group (EG). The cut point for allocating participant in each group was set at 24 months. All of them participated in three workouts (AMRAP, FT and EMOM) with three days of rest. A double comparison was performed between level of experience (IG and EG) and among kinds of training in rating of perceived exertion (RPE), lactate concentration (LAC), countermovement jump (CMJ), heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) using ANOVA and post-hoc Bonferroni tests.

Results

Sex was initially analyzed but had no influence, leading to combined group analyses. The workout type significantly impacted performance, with AMRAP showing differences between expertise levels (ES = 0.81, p = .044). RPE varied by workout type (F(2,46) = 11.003; p < .001), with EG reporting FT as the most and EMOM as the least demanding. Lactate levels increased across all workouts, with FT showing the highest and EMOM the lowest levels (ES = 1.05, p < .001). CMJ performance declined post-AMRAP and FT in both groups, but not after EMOM. No expertise-level differences were found in HRmean or HRmax, but HRV changes were influenced by workout type (F(2,46) = 7.381; p < .01) and expertise (F(1,23) = 4.657; p = .034), with significant decreases in HRV after AMRAP and FT for IG.

Conclusion

The study demonstrates that FT produced greater LAC and RPE as compared to an AMRAP, whereas EMOM generated less neuromuscular fatigue and Lac, particularly in EG. These results underscore the importance of individualizing workout selection to expertise level to optimize performance. Future research should explore longitudinal adaptation to different workout types across diverse populations.

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 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.

Movement Velocity as an Indicator of Mechanical Fatigue and Resistance Exercise Intensity in Cross Modalities

Purpose: This study analyzed the acute mechanical response to three workouts of the day (WOD) protocols in as many repetitions as possible (AMRAP), every minute on the minute (EMOM), and for time (FT) models by quantifying the degree of mechanical fatigue induced by popular resistance exercises in the Cross modalities, front squat (FS), and shoulder press (SP). We also analyzed whether the exercises' fastest velocity (Vfastest) could be an objective indicator of relative intensity (%1RM). Methods: Nine trained men performed three FS and SP exercises protocols. The degree of fatigue was quantified by the velocity loss (VL) achieved in both exercises and the velocity loss achieved in the WOD (VLWOD). Results: The VLWOD in the AMRAP, EMOM, and FT protocols was 73.2 ± 10.9%, 61.6 ± 15.1%, and 76.1 ± 8.8%, respectively. In the AMRAP and FT protocol, the Vfastest showed very strong relationships with the %1RM for FS and SP (r = -0.83, -0.75, respectively, p < .01); while in the EMOM protocol, there was a strong relationship between these variables, only for the SP (r = -0.61, p < .05). In the FT protocol, we observed an extremely strong relationship for FS (r = -0.91, p < .001) and very strong (r = -0.71, p < .05) for SP between these variables. Conclusion: Therefore, the AMRAP and FT training models induce the highest degrees of mechanical fatigue in the FS and SP exercises, and the Vfastest is a reliable tool for estimating relative intensity in resistance exercises of Cross modalities.

Physiological Responses at 15 Minutes of Recovery after a Session of Functional Fitness Training in Well-Trained Athletes

Background: the aim of this study was to analyse muscle fatigue and metabolic stress at 15 min of recovery after performing two independent sessions of functional fitness training (FFT): a session of strength functional fitness training (FFTstrength) and a session of endurance functional fitness training (FFTendurance). Methods: eighteen well-trained men conducted two protocols, separated by one week of rest: FFTstrength (3 sets of 21, 15 and 9 repetitions of Thruster with bar + Pull ups) and FFTendurance (3 sets × (30 kcal rowing + 15 kcal assault air bike)). Neuromuscular fatigue and metabolic stress were measured right before, right after and at 10 and 15 min after completing the FFT workout, as well as the mean heart rate (HRmean) and the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) at the end of the FFT. Results: FFTendurance recovered the velocity loss values after 15 min of recovery. On the other hand, FFTstrength only recovered velocity in the 1 m·s⁻¹ Tests in squat (SQ), since the velocity levels were 7% lower in the 1 m·s⁻¹ Tests in military press exercise (MP) after 15 min. Conclusions: These data indicate that there are specific recovery patterns not only as a function of the exercise and the body regions involved, but also regarding the recovery of neuromuscular and metabolic factors, since both FFT workouts obtained high blood lactate concentrations.

Analysis of Pacing Strategies in AMRAP, EMOM, and FOR TIME Training Models during "Cross" Modalities

Empirically, it is widely discussed in “Cross” modalities that the pacing strategy developed by an athlete or trainee has a significant impact on the endurance performance in a WOD in the AMRAP, EMOM, or FOR TIME model. We can observe at least six pacing strategies adopted during the cyclical modalities in the endurance performance in the scientific literature. However, besides these modalities, exercises of acyclical modalities of weightlifting and gymnastics are performed in the “Cross” modalities. These exercises may not allow the same pacing strategies adopted during cyclic modalities’ movements due to their motor characteristics and different intensity and level of effort imposed to perform the motor gesture. In addition to the intensity and level of effort that are generally unknown to the coach and athlete of the “Cross” modalities, another factor that can influence the adoption of a pacing strategy during a WOD in the AMRAP, EMOM, or FOR TIME model is the task endpoint knowledge, which varies according to the training model used. Thus, our objective was to evaluate situations in which these factors can influence the pacing strategies adopted in a self-regulated task with cyclic and acyclic modalities movements during an endurance workout in the AMRAP, EMOM, and FOR TIME model. Given the scarcity of studies in the scientific literature and the increasing discussion of this topic within the “Cross” modalities, this manuscript can help scientists and coaches better orient their research problems or training programs and analyze and interpret new findings more accurately.

Effects of Introducing Rest Intervals in Functional Fitness Training

Background: Functional Fitness Training (FFT) is a new exercise modality prioritizing functional multi-joint movements executed at high intensity as a circuit. Objective: To examine the impacts of introducing rest intervals in a FFT workout compared to “rounds for time” (RFT) FFT. Materials and Methods: Participants were 25 resistance-trained adults who completed two FFT workouts 1 week apart. The study design was crossover such that in a given session half the participants completed the standard and the other half the adapted FFT (FFTadapted). The workouts consisted of the same exercises (circuit of four rounds of exercises), but one (FFTadapted) included preset rest intervals (three sets of 1 min after each completed round). Before and after the workouts, countermovement jump ability and blood lactate were measured. Heart rate (HR) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured post-exercise. Results: For both the standard and adapted protocols, mean HR was 90% age-predicted maximum. Final RPE was also similar for both workouts (~15–15.5) and indicated a “hard” work intensity. Both FFTs took the same time to complete (~13 min). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in jump ability between FFTs. In contrast, lactate (15.11 ± 3.64 vs. 13.48 ± 3.64 mmol·L−1, p < 0.05), measured 3 min post-exercise, was significantly lower in FFTadapted. Conclusions: In FFTadapted, there was a significant reduction in RPE and blood lactate concentrations after exercise, while there were no significant differences in either HR or jumping ability, compared to a FFT workout in RFT methodology.