Abstract:The design of high-intensity functional training (HIFT; e. g., CrossFit®) workouts and targeted physiological trait(s) vary on any given training day, week, or cycle. Daily workouts are typically comprised of different modality and exercise combinations that are prescribed across a wide range of intensities and durations. The only consistent aspect appears to be the common instruction to maximize effort and workout density by either completing "as many repetitions as possible" within a time limit (e.g., AMRAP, Tabata) or a list of exercises as quickly as possible. However, because effort can vary within and across workouts, the impact on an athlete's physiology may also vary daily. Programming that fails to account for this variation or consider how targeted physiological systems interrelate may lead to overuse, maladaptation, or injury. Athletes may proactively monitor for negative training responses, but any observed response must be tied to a quantifiable workload before meaningful changes (to programming) are possible. Though traditional methods exist for quantifying the resistance training loads, gymnastic movements, and cardiorespiratory modalities (e.g., cycling running) that might appear in a typical HIFT workout, those methods are not uniform, and their meaning will vary based on a specific exercise's placement within a HIFT workout. To objectively quantify HIFT workloads, the calculation must overcome differences in measurement standards used for each modality, be able to account for a component's placement within the workout and be useful regardless of how a workout is commonly scored (e.g., repetitions completed vs. time-to-completion) so that comparisons between workouts are possible. This review paper discusses necessary considerations for quantifying various HIFT workout components and structures, and then details the advantages and shortcomings of different methods used in practice and the scientific literature. Methods typically used in practice range from being excessively tedious and not conducive for making comparisons within or across workouts, to being overly simplistic, based on faulty assumptions, and inaccurate. Meanwhile, only a few HIFT-related studies have attempted to report relevant workloads and have predominantly relied on converting component and workout performance into a rate (i.e., repetitions per minute or second). Repetition completion rate may be easily and accurately tracked and allows for intra- and inter-workout comparisons. Athletes, coaches, and sports scientists are encouraged to adopt this method and potentially pair it with technology (e.g., linear position transducers) to quantify HIFT workloads. Consistent adoption of such methods would enable more precise programming alterations, and it would allow fair comparisons to be made between existing and future research.

Standardizing the Quantification of External Load Across Different Training Modalities: A Critical Need in Sport-Science Research

Quantification of a Professional Football Team's External Load Using a Microcycle Structure

Measuring Training Load in Sports

Quantifying the External and Internal Loads of Professional Rugby League Training Modes: Consideration for Concurrent Field-Based Training Prescription

Quantification of Training and Competition Loads in Endurance Sports: Methods and Applications

Monitoring Training Load to Understand Fatigue in Athletes

Quantification of internal and external training load during a training camp in senior international female footballers

Quantifying CrossFit®: Potential solutions for monitoring multimodal workloads and identifying training targets

Internal and External Training Load: 15 Years On.

Validity of the Training-Load Concept.

Training-Load Management Ambiguities and Weak Logic: Creating Potential Consequences in Sport Training and Performance

Training Load Monitoring in Team Sports: A Novel Framework Separating Physiological and Biomechanical Load-Adaptation Pathways

Measuring Psychological Load in Sport

Monitoring work and training load in military settings – what’s in the toolbox?

The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring—a Practical Perspective and Call to Action

Absolute and Relative Training Load and Its Relation to Fatigue in Football

The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring: Follow-Up and Future Directions

Monitoring Training Loads: The Past, the Present, and the Future

Understanding Training Load as Exposure and Dose

How Can We Make Research More Relevant for Sport Practice?

Discrepancies in internal and external training load measurements during low-intensity biathlon training