# The Role of Physical Fitness on FRAN CrossFit(r) Workout Performance
## 3 Results  
All athletes completed all measurements without injuries. As was expected from the experimental design, the FG was significantly faster in the FRAN time-trial compared to the SG (FG: 210.0 \(\pm\) 49.9 s vs. SG: 386.1 \(\pm\) 99.8 s, \(p\) = 0.001, \(g\) = 2.028). Table 1 presents the results from the anthropometric characteristics and body composition analysis of theathletes. A significant difference was found between the FG and SG only for the percentage body fat. Total maximum handgrip strength was not different between groups (FG: 115.0 \(\pm\) 11.9 kg vs. SG: 114.3 \(\pm\) 20.2 kg, \(p\) = 0.929, \(g\) = 0.036). Although no significant difference was found for the isometric mid-thigh pulls (FG: 204.7 \(\pm\) 26.4 kg vs. SG: 190.9 \(\pm\) 23.4 kg, \(p\) = 0.232, \(g\) = 0.502), a moderate effect size was found between groups. In addition, results from the CMJ are presented in Table 2. The fast group had a significantly higher CMJ height and power relative to body mass compared to the slow group. Moreover, the FG had a significantly lower percentage decrement in vertical jump height during the CJ\({}_{30}\) test (FG: \(-\)15.4 \(\pm\) 3.5% vs. SG: \(-\)19.1 \(\pm\) 3.1%, \(p\) = 0.023, \(g\) = 1.008) (Figure 1A). However, no significant difference was found for power relative to body mass percentage decrement between groups (FG: \(-\)15.6 \(\pm\) 4.2% vs. SG: \(-\)18.6 \(\pm\) 4.1%, \(p\) = 0.120, \(g\) = 0.662), though a moderate effect size was observed (Figure 1B). Results from the 1-RM strength measurements are presented in Table 2. Significant differences were found for almost all strength exercises between the FG and SG, while a large effect size was observed for the 1-RM strength in dead-lift. A correlation analysis including all athletes (N = 20) revealed significant relationships between the FRAN time-trial with percentage body fat (r = 0.512, \(p\) = 0.021) (Figure 2A), as well as with the percentage decrement of height during the CJ\({}_{30}\) test (r = \(-\)0.454, \(p\) = 0.044) (Figure 2B). Furthermore, the time-trial in FRAN was significantly correlated with 1-RM strength in snatch (r = \(-\)0.583, \(p\) = 0.007), clean and jerk (r = \(-\)0.561, \(p\) = 0.011), thrusters (r = \(-\)0.510, \(p\) = 0.022), and squat (r = \(-\)0.701, \(p\) = 0.001). In addition, the FRAN time-trial was also correlated with CMJ height (r = \(-\)0.634, \(p\) = 0.003) and CMJ power relative to body mass (r = \(-\)0.655, \(p\) = 0.002). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & **FG** & **SG** & \(p\) & **Hedge’s \(g\)** \\ \hline Age (years) & 30.3 \(\pm\)4.2 & 31.0 \(\pm\) 5.4 & 0.751 & 0.131 \\ Training experience (years) & 7.0 \(\pm\) 3.5 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 3.6 & 0.218 & 0.518 \\ Body mass (kg) & 80.9 \(\pm\) 8.3 & 81.4 \(\pm\) 10.6 & 0.917 & 0.04 \\ Body height (m) & 1.77 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 1.75 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.524 & 0.264 \\ Body mass index (kg\(\cdot\)m\({}^{-2}\)) & 25.8 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 26.5 \(\pm\) 2.7 & 0.420 & 0.335 \\ Fat-free mass (kg) & 71.3 \(\pm\) 8.1 & 67.9 \(\pm\) 6.8 & 0.324 & 0.412 \\ Trunk muscle mass (kg) & 35.9 \(\pm\) 4.0 & 34.2 \(\pm\) 2.9 & 0.278 & 0.455 \\ Arms muscle mass (kg) & 8.9 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 8.2 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 0.244 & 0.489 \\ Legs muscle mass (kg) & 22.9 \(\pm\) 2.6 & 22.1 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 0.458 & 0.308 \\ Fat (\%) & 11.9 \(\pm\) 3.6 & 16.2 \(\pm\) 3.7 & 0.018 & 1.059 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{FG = fast group, SG = slow group.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of the anthropometric characteristics and body composition between fast and slow groups.