Stability, Mobility, and Strength in HYROX Preparation: A Critical Narrative Review of Movement Quality, Neuromuscular Control, and Performance Transfer
Abstract
Background: The coaching proposition that athletic development should progress from stability to mobility to strength is widely used in performance and rehabilitation settings. In HYROX, a standardized hybrid fitness race that alternates repeated running with loaded functional stations, this proposition is attractive because athletes must preserve movement quality while expressing force under fatigue. However, the scientific basis for treating stability, mobility, and strength as a fixed causal sequence is heterogeneous and not HYROX-specific.
Objective: This critical narrative review evaluates current evidence for trunk and postural control, task-relevant mobility, and strength development as contributors to movement quality and performance transfer in HYROX preparation.
Evidence acquisition: Peer-reviewed literature was prioritized from HYROX physiology and athlete-profile research, trunk and core training reviews, neuromuscular-control literature, functional-training studies, and injury-prevention research. Official HYROX materials were used only to characterize event structure. The review was intentionally framed as a critical narrative synthesis rather than a systematic review because the HYROX-specific evidence base remains young and limited.
Evidence synthesis: Early HYROX-specific evidence suggests that aerobic capacity, endurance-training volume, body composition, and sport-specific execution are important determinants of completion time, while direct evidence isolating mobility, core stability, or maximal strength as independent predictors is scarce. Across adjacent sport-science literature, trunk and core training can improve balance, local muscular endurance, selected physical-fitness outcomes, and some sport-specific tasks, but transfer is inconsistent across populations, tests, and interventions. Recent mediation evidence also cautions against assuming that core stability directly mediates the relationship between core strength and athletic performance.
Conclusions: Current evidence supports emphasizing movement competency, fatigue-resistant technique, controlled range of motion, and task-specific force expression in HYROX preparation. It does not support presenting stability -> mobility -> strength as a rigid universal law. A stronger model is iterative: endurance remains central, while stability, mobility, and strength are developed together around the athlete, the task, and the race demands.
Keywords: HYROX; hybrid fitness racing; core stability; trunk control; mobility; strength; neuromuscular control; movement quality; endurance performance; injury prevention.
Highlights
- HYROX performance should be framed as endurance-dominant but constrained by station-specific force expression, movement economy, and technical retention under fatigue.
- Trunk and postural control are plausible performance-enabling qualities, but direct transfer to sport-specific performance remains inconsistent across reviews.
- Mobility is most defensible when defined as controlled, task-relevant range of motion rather than generalized flexibility.
- Strength work should be justified by race tasks and transfer: sleds, carries, lunges, wall balls, rowing, SkiErg work, and run-to-station transitions.
- Future HYROX research should use race splits, biomechanics, training-load monitoring, and prospective injury surveillance to test these applied assumptions.
Introduction
HYROX is a standardized hybrid fitness race in which athletes repeatedly alternate 1 km running segments with functional stations such as SkiErg, sled push, sled pull, burpee broad jump, rowing, farmer's carry, sandbag lunges, and wall balls (HYROX World GmbH, n.d.; Brandt et al., 2025). This fixed format makes the sport attractive for applied sport science because the task order, running volume, and station demands are consistent across events. At the same time, the sport challenges traditional boundaries between endurance training, functional strength, movement-quality coaching, and fatigue management.
Within performance coaching, the sequence stability -> mobility -> strength is often presented as a foundational pathway for athletic development. The logic is intuitive: force can be expressed more efficiently when the athlete controls posture, accesses the required joint range, and then loads that range with sufficient strength and coordination. In HYROX, this rationale appears especially relevant because athletes must run, push, pull, carry, lunge, throw, and transition repeatedly while cardiovascular and local muscular fatigue accumulate.
However, intuitive sequencing is not the same as a verified causal model. The evidence base around core stability, trunk muscle training, mobility, functional movement, and sport performance is mixed. Some reviews report improvements in balance, core endurance, power, agility, or selected sport outcomes after trunk or core training, whereas others find limited or inconsistent transfer to sport-specific performance (Dong et al., 2023; Prieske et al., 2016; Rodríguez-Perea et al., 2023; Saeterbakken et al., 2022; Zemková & Zapletalová, 2022). Recent mediation work further suggests that the relationship among core strength, core stability, and performance may be more complex than the commonly stated “stability drives performance” explanation (Schulte et al., 2025).
The purpose of this manuscript is therefore to present a critical narrative review of stability, mobility, and strength in HYROX preparation. The review asks whether current evidence supports these qualities as performance-relevant targets, how confidently they can be sequenced, and how coaches and researchers should translate adjacent sport-science findings into a young, standardized hybrid racing environment. The central argument is deliberately cautious: stability, mobility, and strength are important, but they should be treated as interacting constraints and capacities rather than as a rigid one-way hierarchy.
Review approach
This manuscript is framed as a critical narrative review rather than a systematic or scoping review. Evidence acquisition prioritized peer-reviewed literature on HYROX physiology and athlete profiling, trunk and core training, neuromuscular control, functional strength training, and injury-prevention exercise programs. Non-peer-reviewed coaching or media sources were not used for load-bearing scientific claims; official HYROX materials were retained only for event-format description.
Because direct HYROX research remains limited, adjacent evidence was included when transfer was biomechanically or physiologically plausible. This included sport-general evidence on trunk control and athletic performance, meta-analytic studies on core or trunk training, and applied functional training research. The synthesis emphasizes strength of evidence, conceptual definitions, and translational boundaries. Claims are described as HYROX-specific only when supported by HYROX studies; otherwise, they are presented as evidence-informed extrapolations requiring future validation.
No human or animal participants were recruited and no new dataset was analyzed. Accordingly, ethics approval was not required. This review does not claim PRISMA-level completeness and should be interpreted as a structured, critical synthesis intended to guide manuscript development, coaching application, and future research design.
Table 1. Priority evidence base for the critical narrative review.
| Study | Design/sample | Main finding | Implication for this manuscript |
| Brandt et al. (2025) | HYROX physiology study; 11 recreational athletes in a simulated event | Completion time was associated with higher VO2max, more endurance training, and lower body-fat percentage; the event imposed substantial running and station stress. | Keeps endurance capacity central and prevents overclaiming maximal strength or movement-quality variables as dominant predictors. |
| Villarroel López et al. (2025) | Descriptive questionnaire study; 80 active HYROX athletes | Athletes reported varied endurance and functional-training backgrounds, high preparation demands, and recovery practices that were not always structured. | Supports discussing athlete profiling, training organization, and recovery without implying definitive performance causality. |
| Zemková & Zapletalová (2022) | Scoping review of postural/core stability and functional movement | Postural and core stability appear relevant to efficient movement and injury prevention, but sport-specific transfer remains inconsistent. | Provides the most balanced framing for trunk and postural control. |
| Schulte et al. (2025) | Mediation study; 41 sport students | Maximal core strength related to jump performance, but selected core-stability variables did not significantly mediate that relationship. | Requires softening claims that core stability directly mediates athletic performance. |
| Dong et al. (2023) | Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials | Core training improved general qualities more consistently than sport-specific speed or power outcomes. | Supports caution when translating core training into race-performance claims. |
| Rodríguez-Perea et al. (2023) | Systematic review with meta-analysis | Core training improved balance and selected jump or throw outcomes. | Acknowledges that transfer can occur, but outcome specificity matters. |
| Saeterbakken et al. (2022) | Systematic review with meta-analysis | Trunk muscle training improved selected physical-fitness outcomes and sport-specific performance in competitive athletes. | Supports targeted trunk training when programmed with sufficient specificity and dose. |
| Prieske et al. (2016) | Systematic review and meta-analysis in trained individuals | Trunk muscle strength played a minor role in physical fitness and athletic performance; core strength training increased trunk strength with limited broader transfer. | Prevents overstating trunk strength as a universal performance driver. |
| Guler et al. (2021) | Controlled functional-strength intervention in active adults | Functional strength training improved functional-movement scores and balance more than traditional strength training. | Supports integrated movement-quality programming while noting the population is not HYROX-specific. |
| Ramos et al. (2024) | Systematic review of FIFA 11+ Kids | Structured neuromuscular warm-up programs were associated with lower injury risk and improved selected performance-related variables in youth soccer. | Useful as a high-quality example of integrated neuromuscular programming, not direct HYROX evidence. |
HYROX demands and current performance evidence
The clearest current message from HYROX-specific research is that the sport is strongly endurance constrained while still requiring repeated station-specific force. Brandt et al. (2025) described HYROX as a running-focused high-intensity functional fitness format and reported that faster completion times in their sample were associated with higher maximal oxygen uptake, greater endurance-training volume, and lower body-fat percentage. Grip strength and resistance-training volume were not significant correlates of total completion time in that small sample. This finding should not be overinterpreted, but it does caution against treating maximal strength or generic resistance volume as the primary performance model once athletes can meet station-load demands.
The descriptive athlete-profile literature reaches a compatible but broader conclusion. Villarroel López et al. (2025) characterized HYROX participants as athletes with varied endurance and functional-training histories, meaningful training commitment, and recovery practices that may not always be as structured as physical preparation. These data support a coaching model that considers total workload, recovery, and sport-specific execution rather than isolated gym capacities alone.
For the present review, these early studies create a boundary condition: stability, mobility, and strength should be discussed as capacities that help athletes express endurance and station skill, not as replacements for aerobic development. The most defensible HYROX model is therefore multidimensional. Aerobic capacity and running economy shape the majority of race time; station-specific strength and muscular endurance shape task completion; trunk control and mobility influence technical economy; and pacing determines how long those qualities can be expressed before mechanics degrade.
Figure 1. Conceptual model positioning stability, mobility, and strength as interacting performance enablers rather than a fixed linear hierarchy.
Stability and neuromuscular control
Stability is most useful when defined operationally as the ability to control posture, segment position, and force transfer during task-specific movement. In HYROX, this includes maintaining trunk orientation during sled pushing and pulling, controlling frontal-plane collapse during lunges, bracing and breathing under carries, and preserving trunk-hip coordination while returning to running after a station. These demands are practical and observable, but they should not be reduced to a single generic “core stability” score.
Zemková and Zapletalová (2022) concluded that neuromuscular control of postural and core stability appears to contribute to efficient functional movement in sport, while also emphasizing the limited and inconsistent nature of evidence linking these qualities to sport-specific performance. This dual message is important. It supports the inclusion of trunk and postural control in HYROX preparation, but it does not justify deterministic language suggesting that better core stability automatically produces faster race times.
Recent mediation evidence reinforces that caution. Schulte et al. (2025) tested whether selected core-stability variables mediated the relationship between core strength and jump performance. Maximal core strength was directly related to drop-jump performance, yet the selected core-stability variables did not show significant indirect mediation effects. This does not make stability irrelevant; rather, it shows that the pathway from trunk qualities to performance is not settled and probably depends on task, measurement method, athlete level, and the specific stability construct being tested.
In applied terms, stability should therefore be framed as a performance-enabling and injury-mitigating capacity with plausible HYROX relevance. Coaches can train it with loaded carries, anti-rotation tasks, unilateral loading, sled-specific trunk positions, controlled breathing under brace, and transition drills. Researchers should test whether those interventions improve station split times, running economy after stations, or kinematic preservation under fatigue before making stronger causal claims.
Mobility as task-relevant controlled range of motion
Mobility should be distinguished from passive flexibility. For HYROX, the key question is not whether an athlete has a large global range of motion, but whether the athlete can access and control the ranges needed for race tasks at speed, under load, and under fatigue. This includes ankle dorsiflexion for running, wall-ball receiving positions, and lunging; hip flexion-extension control for burpee broad jumps and sandbag lunges; thoracic extension and shoulder flexion for wall balls and SkiErg mechanics; and trunk-hip dissociation for efficient loaded locomotion.
The evidence base does not currently establish mobility as an independent HYROX performance determinant. A more defensible interpretation is that mobility behaves as a threshold variable. Inadequate range may force compensations, reduce movement economy, and increase tissue stress. Once sufficient controlled range is available for the task, additional passive range may not translate linearly to faster completion time. This distinction allows the manuscript to preserve the coaching importance of mobility without overstating the evidence.
Task specificity should guide both assessment and intervention. For example, a wall-ball limitation may reflect ankle range, squat mechanics, shoulder flexion, thoracic extension, trunk endurance, or pacing strategy. Similarly, late-race lunge collapse may reflect mobility, strength endurance, local fatigue, breathing disruption, or energy availability. Rigorous discussion should avoid single-cause explanations and instead encourage coaches to identify the limiting constraint in the context in which it appears.
Strength, trunk training, and performance transfer
Strength is undeniably necessary for HYROX: athletes must move sleds, carry loads, row, lunge with a sandbag, and complete repeated wall balls. The key scientific question is not whether strength matters, but which strength qualities matter most and how directly they transfer to race performance. The early HYROX physiology evidence suggests that once athletes meet the event's load demands, endurance capacity and sport-specific execution may explain more of total completion time than generic strength markers in recreational samples (Brandt et al., 2025).
Meta-analytic evidence on trunk and core training is informative but heterogeneous. Dong et al. (2023) reported that core training had limited consistent effects on sport-specific speed and power outcomes, even though general fitness qualities may improve. Rodríguez-Perea et al. (2023) found improvements in balance and selected jump or throw outcomes. Saeterbakken et al. (2022) reported small-to-large effects of trunk muscle training on selected physical-fitness outcomes and moderate effects on sport-specific performance among competitive athletes. In contrast, Prieske et al. (2016) concluded that trunk muscle strength plays only a minor role in physical fitness and athletic performance in trained individuals. The collective message is heterogeneity rather than consensus.
For HYROX, this literature supports targeted, task-linked strength development. Useful strength is not merely the ability to produce high force once; it is the ability to express force repeatedly while preserving breathing, posture, pacing, and transition rhythm. Programming should therefore include maximal strength to raise the ceiling, strength endurance to tolerate station density, loaded locomotion to integrate trunk and grip demands, and technical rehearsals that reproduce race-specific constraints.
Integrated programming for HYROX preparation
The strongest practical model is integrated but prioritized development. Endurance capacity remains central because the race contains 8 km of running and early evidence links aerobic capacity and endurance-training volume with completion time. Within that endurance-centered model, movement quality determines how effectively athletes express force and maintain economy across stations. Stability, mobility, and strength should therefore be developed iteratively rather than as a one-time sequence.
An athlete may need mobility work before a strength progression if joint range clearly restricts the task. Another athlete may need strength to stabilize an existing range. A third may have adequate fresh-movement capacity but lose trunk position only after high-intensity running. In each case, the correct intervention depends on the observed constraint, not on a universal order. This distinction is central to a defensible model: stability -> mobility -> strength is a useful coaching heuristic, not a verified law.
The following programming loop translates this position into applied practice. It begins with assessment, builds minimum usable capacity, integrates that capacity into race tasks, stress-tests the skill under fatigue, and then returns to monitoring. This loop keeps the framework actionable while aligning recommendations with current evidence boundaries.
Figure 2. Applied programming loop for integrating stability, mobility, and strength into HYROX-specific preparation.
Table 2. Evidence-informed translation of stability, mobility, and strength into HYROX preparation.
| Domain | HYROX relevance | Recommended emphasis | Interpretive caution |
| Trunk/postural control | Sled work, carries, lunges, wall balls, SkiErg posture, return-to-run transitions | Train bracing with breathing, anti-rotation, unilateral loading, loaded carries, sled-position control, and fatigue-resilient posture. | Plausible and supported by adjacent evidence, but not yet proven as an independent HYROX performance determinant. |
| Mobility | Ankle dorsiflexion, hip control, thoracic extension, shoulder flexion, squat/lunge positions | Assess task-specific active range and load it progressively within relevant race patterns. | Do not imply that more passive flexibility always improves race time; sufficient controlled range is the target. |
| Maximal strength | Sled initiation, loaded carries, wall-ball tolerance, sandbag lunge reserve | Build a strength ceiling with heavy, technically sound compound and station-relevant work. | Once minimum load capacity is achieved, maximal strength may be less predictive of total race time than endurance and execution. |
| Strength endurance | Repeated wall balls, lunges, burpees, rowing, SkiErg, grip-demand stations | Use density, repeatability, and pacing tasks that maintain technique under fatigue. | Avoid chronic race-pace grinding that increases fatigue without improving adaptation. |
| Endurance capacity | All running segments, station recovery, pacing stability, late-race technical retention | Prioritize aerobic development, running economy, and threshold/race-specific conditioning. | Current HYROX evidence supports endurance as central; movement-quality training should support rather than displace it. |
| Transition efficiency | Run-to-station entry, station exit, technical reset, breathing normalization | Practice controlled station entry and exit with consistent pacing and movement standards. | Likely important but needs direct split-level research before strong causal claims. |
Injury-risk management and movement-quality claims
Injury-prevention claims require particular caution. Movement quality is a reasonable concern in a fatigue-based sport, but direct HYROX injury epidemiology remains limited. Therefore, coaches and researchers should not present specific injury patterns, screening cutoffs, or universal thresholds as established unless supported by prospective HYROX data. This includes avoiding overreliance on functional-movement screening thresholds as if they were settled injury predictors across contexts.
A defensible statement is that progressive exposure, technical competence, load management, recovery monitoring, and neuromuscular warm-up strategies are likely relevant because HYROX combines repeated running, loaded locomotion, high-force pushing and pulling, and overhead repetition under fatigue. Evidence from structured neuromuscular warm-up programs in other sports, such as FIFA 11+ Kids, demonstrates that integrated movement-quality interventions can reduce injury burden and improve selected physical outcomes in specific populations (Ramos et al., 2024). However, transfer from youth soccer to adult HYROX should be treated as conceptual support, not direct proof.
A rigorous evidence framework should therefore separate three levels of inference: direct HYROX evidence, adjacent sport-science evidence, and authorial coaching inference. This structure strengthens the paper because it allows practical recommendations to remain useful without presenting them as more certain than the literature allows.
Practical applications for coaches and athletes
The applied conclusion is not that every HYROX athlete should complete a generic stability block, then a mobility block, then a strength block. Rather, coaches should evaluate which constraint limits the athlete's ability to maintain efficient race mechanics. The same visible breakdown can have different causes: an athlete may fail wall balls because of ankle mobility, shoulder range, trunk endurance, breathing disruption, pacing error, or insufficient squat strength. The intervention should match the constraint.
For most athletes, the practical framework is to build aerobic durability, raise strength reserves for station loads, train controlled ranges required by race movements, and repeatedly rehearse transitions under fatigue. Technical standards should be practiced at low, moderate, and race-specific intensities. Movement-quality work is most valuable when it improves execution in the actual task environment, not when it becomes isolated corrective exercise disconnected from performance demands.
In competition preparation, coaches should monitor run splits, station splits, technical error patterns, heart-rate or perceptual drift, grip fatigue, lunge mechanics, wall-ball breakdown, pain signals, and recovery markers. These data allow stability, mobility, and strength interventions to be tested against meaningful outcomes. If an intervention does not improve movement quality, reduce technical decay, or support sustainable output, it should be revised.
Limitations
This review has several limitations. First, it is a critical narrative review, not a systematic review. Its purpose is to synthesize a focused evidence base and guide application, not to provide exhaustive database coverage or formal quality grading. Second, direct HYROX research is still sparse; much of the argument relies on adjacent literature from endurance sport, high-intensity functional fitness, trunk/core training, functional movement, and injury-prevention research.
Third, trunk stability, core strength, mobility, and movement quality are inconsistently defined across studies. This inconsistency limits direct comparison and makes strong causal claims inappropriate. Fourth, many studies use outcomes such as balance, jump performance, agility, or movement-screen scores rather than HYROX race splits or completion time. Finally, the practical recommendations in this manuscript should be interpreted as evidence-informed hypotheses until tested in prospective HYROX-specific cohorts or interventions.
Future research
The next phase of HYROX scholarship should move beyond general performance commentary and collect race-specific data. Prospective cohort studies should measure aerobic capacity, running economy, body composition, trunk strength/endurance, grip endurance, lower-limb strength, ankle dorsiflexion, thoracic mobility, movement-quality indicators, training-load distribution, recovery practices, and official run and station splits. This would help identify which variables are true performance drivers and which are threshold capacities that only matter when insufficient.
Randomized intervention studies are also needed. A useful trial would compare standard HYROX preparation with a movement-quality intervention emphasizing trunk control, task-specific mobility, loaded locomotion, and transition technique. Outcomes should include total completion time, individual station splits, post-station running economy, perceived exertion drift, technical error frequency, and injury or pain incidence. Fatigue-biomechanics studies using video analysis or wearable sensors would further clarify where and when movement quality deteriorates across the race.
Table 3. Recommended next studies for HYROX movement-quality research.
| Research priority | Suggested design | Key variables | Why it matters |
| Performance predictors | Prospective cohort across one preparation phase and race | VO2max, thresholds, run/station splits, body composition, trunk strength/endurance, grip, lower-limb power, mobility | Separates true predictors from plausible but untested coaching assumptions. |
| Movement-quality intervention | Randomized or matched comparison of standard preparation versus integrated SMS block | Station times, running economy after stations, technical errors, RPE drift, pain/injury events | Tests whether targeted stability, mobility, and strength work transfers to race outcomes. |
| Fatigue biomechanics | Repeated-measures laboratory or field simulation with video/wearable sensors | Joint kinematics, trunk position, stride mechanics, lunge/wall-ball mechanics, station-to-run recovery | Identifies when movement degradation occurs and which tasks are most sensitive to fatigue. |
| Injury surveillance | Multi-site registry across training and competition | Exposure, prior injury, training load, station aggravators, surface/footwear, pain location, time loss | Provides evidence for injury-risk management rather than relying on extrapolation. |
Conclusion
The available evidence supports the importance of trunk and postural control, task-relevant mobility, and event-specific strength in HYROX preparation, but it does not support presenting stability -> mobility -> strength as a rigid universal sequence or proven causal law. A more accurate scientific position is that these qualities interact with endurance capacity, running economy, station skill, pacing, and fatigue tolerance. For HYROX, movement quality matters because it may help athletes preserve technical efficiency and force expression across repeated running and functional stations; endurance capacity remains central because it currently has the strongest HYROX-specific support as a determinant of completion time.
Coaches should therefore use stability, mobility, and strength as an iterative framework for identifying and solving task-specific constraints. Researchers should test these claims with race splits, fatigue-biomechanics data, movement-quality interventions, and injury surveillance. Until such data are available, the most defensible position is both practical and cautious: movement competency likely improves how athletes express endurance and force in HYROX, but its performance transfer depends on the athlete, the task, and the quality of integration into sport-specific preparation.
References
Brandt, T. B., Ebel, C., Lebahn, C., & Schmidt, A. (2025). Acute physiological responses and performance determinants in Hyrox© - a new running-focused high intensity functional fitness trend. Frontiers in Physiology, 16, Article 1519240. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1519240
Dong, K., Yu, T., & Chun, B. (2023). Effects of core training on sport-specific performance of athletes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13020148
Guler, O., Tuncel, O., & Bianco, A. (2021). Effects of functional strength training on functional movement and balance in middle-aged adults. Sustainability, 13(3), 1074. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031074
HYROX World GmbH. (n.d.). The fitness race. Retrieved July 7, 2026, from https://hyrox.com/the-fitness-race/
Prieske, O., Muehlbauer, T., & Granacher, U. (2016). The role of trunk muscle strength for physical fitness and athletic performance in trained individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(3), 401-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0426-4
Ramos, A. P., de Mesquita, R. S., Migliorini, F., Maffulli, N., & Okubo, R. (2024). FIFA 11+ KIDS in the prevention of soccer injuries in children: A systematic review. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 19, Article 413. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04876-9
Rodríguez-Perea, Á., Reyes-Ferrada, W., Jerez-Mayorga, D., Chirosa Ríos, L., Van den Tillaar, R., Chirosa Ríos, I., & Martínez-García, D. (2023). Core training and performance: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Biology of Sport, 40(4), 975-992. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2023.123319
Saeterbakken, A. H., Stien, N., Andersen, V., Scott, S., Cumming, K. T., Behm, D. G., & Prieske, O. (2022). The effects of trunk muscle training on physical fitness and sport-specific performance in young and adult athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52(7), 1599-1622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01637-0
Schulte, S., Lukas, M., Bopp, J., Zschorlich, V., & Büsch, D. (2025). Relation between core strength, core stability, and athletic performance - a mediation analysis approach. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 7, Article 1669023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1669023
Villarroel López, P., Agudo-Ortega, A., & Juárez Santos-García, D. (2025). Characterization of the profile of Hyrox© athletes. Applied Sciences, 15(21), 11693. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152111693
Zemková, E., & Zapletalová, L. (2022). The role of neuromuscular control of postural and core stability in functional movement and athlete performance. Frontiers in Physiology, 13, Article 796097. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.796097