Strength-Limited vs Engine-Limited HYROX Athlete Profiles: Training, Testing, and Programming

Executive summary

HYROX is a standardized hybrid race format: 8 × 1 km runs alternating with 8 fixed stations (SkiErg, Sled Push, Sled Pull, Burpee Broad Jumps, Row, Farmers Carry, Sandbag Lunges, Wall Balls), with loads and some standards varying by division while total running distance remains 8 km. (HYROX, 2025)

The best peer-reviewed HYROX-specific physiological dataset to date (a simulated HYROX competition) found that running comprised the largest portion of total time (~51.2 min running vs ~32.8 min stations; median total ~86.5 min). Stations produced higher peak lactate and perceived exertion than runs, and the highest HR, blood lactate, and RPE occurred at Wall Balls (final station). Faster completion correlated with higher VO₂max, greater endurance training volume, and lower body fat %. (Brandt et al., 2025)

Those findings imply two dominant athlete limitation patterns that are practically useful for HYROX coaching:

• Engine-limited profile: the athlete loses disproportionate time in the run segments and/or post-station run re-stabilization (pace fade, HR drift, decoupling), despite acceptable station competency. This profile aligns with the observed association between aerobic capacity/endurance volume and total time. (Brandt et al., 2025)
• Strength-limited profile: the athlete loses disproportionate time in high-force stations (especially sleds, carries, lunges, wall balls) and/or accumulates station-induced fatigue that drives large transition penalties into runs. This profile is not invalidated by the simulation’s correlational findings; rather, it highlights that many strength-related determinants may operate through indirect mechanisms (transition cost, neuromuscular fatigue, movement efficiency) that were not fully captured by the small sample’s predictor set. (Brandt et al., 2025)

A central programming challenge is that strength and endurance are not independent. Concurrent training can blunt strength/hypertrophy/power adaptations depending on endurance modality, frequency, and duration, and molecular signaling models provide plausible mechanisms for interference. Therefore, profile-based programming must specify what to prioritize, what to maintain, and how to sequence. (Wilson et al., 2012)

The most defensible approach for coaches (given current evidence) is to treat “strength-limited vs engine-limited” as a profiling framework grounded in repeatable tests + race-split analysis, then to apply targeted periodization blocks that (i) fix the dominant limiter while (ii) maintaining the other system above a minimum effective dose, and (iii) minimizing avoidable interference and injury risk. (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009)

Conceptual framework and operational definitions

HYROX demands mapping and why profiles matter

A HYROX race consists of 8 km running (8 × 1 km) and 8 stations in a fixed order; distances and loads are regulated (e.g., SkiErg 1,000 m; Row 1,000 m; Sled Push 50 m; Sled Pull 50 m; Burpee Broad Jumps 80 m; Farmers Carry 200 m; Sandbag Lunges 100 m; Wall Balls 100 reps, with division-specific loads). (HYROX, 2025)

The simulated HYROX study demonstrates a time structure consistent with an endurance-dominant outcome: running accounted for the majority of time (~59% of total time in that cohort). (Brandt et al., 2025)

Yet stations appear to be the main physiological disruptors, with higher peak lactate and RPE than runs and a late-race “bottleneck” at wall balls. (Brandt et al., 2025)

This is the core rationale for profiling: two athletes can have the same finish time but lose time in different ways—and therefore require different training emphasis.

Precise definitions used in this review

Definitions follow established exercise science usage and position statements:

• Maximal strength: maximal force production (e.g., 1RM, peak isometric force) under defined conditions. (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009)
• Power: rate of doing work (force × velocity), often operationalized via ballistic lifts, jump metrics, or force–time characteristics (e.g., RFD proxies). (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009)
• Strength-endurance / local muscular endurance: ability to sustain submaximal force output or repetitions under fatigue at a given load/standard. (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009)
• Engine / aerobic capacity: integrated ability to sustain oxidative ATP production and recover between bouts; operational proxies include VO₂max, threshold markers (LT1/LT2 or VT1/VT2), critical speed/power, and durability metrics (internal–external decoupling). (Brandt et al., 2025)

For endurance intensity anchoring, this review treats Zone 2 as sub-LT1 / sub-VT1 (below the first lactate/ventilatory threshold) per expert panel consensus, while acknowledging that “Zone 2” is inconsistently defined across systems and must be anchored to thresholds for meaningful programming. (Sitko et al., 2025)

Evidence-weighting note for key claims

“Strength-limited vs engine-limited” is a coaching construct that must be grounded in measurable outcomes. The table below summarizes evidence strength for claims this review uses as anchors.

Operational profiling: classification criteria and tests

Key constraint: Weekly training hours and division are unspecified, and peer-reviewed normative HYROX split databases remain limited. Therefore, profiling should be relative to (a) the athlete’s own split distribution over time and (b) cohort/field percentiles when available.

A practical scientific framing is a two-axis continuum:

• Engine axis: VO₂max / thresholds / CS (capacity + durability + recovery kinetics) (Brandt et al., 2025)
• Strength axis: maximal force + force-time + tendon/contractile robustness + station-specific strength-endurance throughput (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009)

Profile definitions and recommended tests

Sources for test selection and reliability: ACSM resistance training definitions; IMTP reliability systematic review; CMJ/IMTP fatigue monitoring evidence; CP/CS conceptual basis and field testing systematic review; HYROX standardized station demands from the rulebook; and HYROX performance determinants from the simulated HYROX study (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009; Brandt et al., 2025; Grgic et al., 2022; HYROX, 2025; Lipková et al., 2025; Pojskić et al., 2025; Poole et al., 2016).

Profiling → programming decision process

Decision flow:

1. Collect race/simulation splits + the test battery; identify the dominant time-loss locus.

2. If runs and mid-race fade dominate, test the engine: low VO₂max/critical speed or early decoupling → prioritize an engine block; normal engine but large transition penalty → prioritize transition resilience and station pacing.

3. If stations and technical breakdown dominate, test strength/station capacity: low IMTP/CMJ/1RM or low station throughput → prioritize max strength + strength-endurance; normal strength but high lactate/RPE at stations → prioritize station efficiency, pacing, and buffering strategies.

4. If both systems are limiting, start with a durability + movement-quality base and progress conservatively.

5. Protect the non-limiting system with minimum-effective-dose work, then retest in 4–8 weeks and adjust.

(Threshold retest interval is suggested; actual cadence depends on season timing and weekly hours, which are unspecified.) (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009)

Physiological mechanisms and adaptations underpinning the two profiles

Strength-dominant adaptations relevant to HYROX stations

HYROX stations include high external loads (sled push/pull) and repeated submaximal contractions (wall balls, lunges, carries), so performance depends on maximal force capacity, force-time characteristics, and local muscular endurance under fatigue. (HYROX, 2025)

Two strong adaptation anchors:

• Hypertrophy (contractile potential) and strength: A systematic review/meta-analysis demonstrates a graded dose–response between weekly resistance training set volume and hypertrophy, supporting “volume as a driver,” especially when building a strength-limited athlete’s base. (Schoenfeld et al., 2017)
• Tendon stiffness and material properties: Tendons are highly responsive to chronic loading; a systematic review/meta-analysis indicates that loading magnitude is a key determinant of tendon stiffness adaptation, which matters for running economy and for force transfer during loaded stations. (Bohm et al., 2015)

Mechanistically, strength-limited athletes often exhibit either (i) insufficient absolute strength (sleds feel near-maximal), (ii) insufficient strength-endurance (rapid local fatigue), or (iii) low mechanical efficiency/skill (excess co-contraction, poor line of pull), which increases metabolic cost and transition penalty into runs. (Allen et al., 2008)

Engine-dominant adaptations relevant to repeated 1 km runs and recovery

The best empirical HYROX determinant data indicate that VO₂max and endurance volume correlate with total time, and that running occupies most time. (Brandt et al., 2025)

Therefore engine-limited athletes benefit most from adaptations improving:

• Peripheral oxidative capacity (mitochondrial content) and capillarization: A large meta-regression shows substantial mitochondrial and capillary growth responses to training, with training status strongly moderating gains; SIT and HIT can be more time-efficient early, while ET/HIT can provide slower but steady improvements with more weeks. (Mølmen et al., 2025)
• Durability (internal–external decoupling): Large observational marathon data show that earlier/larger decoupling relates to worse performance, supporting decoupling as a workable “durability” concept for repeated running segments and late-race fade susceptibility. (Smyth et al., 2022)

Station-to-run transition physiology (why profiles interact)

Even if an athlete is “strength-strong,” stations can elevate lactate, ventilation, and HR before each run. In the simulated HYROX, stations produced higher BLmax and RPE than runs, and the final wall-ball station produced the highest HR/BL/RPE. (Brandt et al., 2025)

This makes the transition penalty (and thus profiling) sensitive to:

• PCr depletion and incomplete restoration: Classic muscle biopsy work shows PCr resynthesis is biphasic and depends on oxygen delivery; occlusion abolishes PCr resynthesis, emphasizing the importance of perfusion and aerobic capacity for recovery between bouts. (Harris et al., 1976)
• Metabolic fatigue mechanisms: Skeletal muscle fatigue reflects ionic and metabolite changes during repeated intense contractions, providing a mechanistic basis for post-station running economy loss. (Allen et al., 2008)
• Lactate vs acidosis clarification: Lactate production does not cause acidosis; however, high lactate remains a marker of high metabolic flux conditions associated with fatigue and pacing collapse. (Robergs et al., 2004)
• Cardiovascular drift: Prolonged work can produce declining stroke volume and rising HR (drift) after ~10–20 min; indoor heat and dehydration can exacerbate this, likely relevant in longer HYROX efforts. (Coyle & González-Alonso, 2001)
• Respiratory muscle work and blood-flow competition: Respiratory muscle fatigue–induced metaboreflex can reduce limb blood flow and contribute to locomotor fatigue, supporting the plausibility that upper-body heavy stations increase subsequent running cost. (Dempsey et al., 2006)

Expected adaptations and time-efficiency by training domain and profile

Primary synthesis sources: Mølmen et al. meta-regression for mitochondria/capillaries/VO₂max time-efficiency; Schoenfeld et al. volume-hypertrophy dose-response; tendon loading meta-analysis; Zone 2 expert panel; HIIT vs MICT athlete meta-analysis; and lactate-guided threshold model paper (Bohm et al., 2015; Casado et al., 2023; Mølmen et al., 2025; Schoenfeld et al., 2017; Sitko et al., 2025; Wang & Wang, 2024).

Interference effects and sequencing in hybrid programming

What concurrent training evidence implies for HYROX profiles

A meta-analysis on concurrent training interference found that endurance training can compromise strength/hypertrophy/power outcomes, and that interference is influenced by endurance modality, frequency, and duration—with running often showing stronger negative associations than cycling. (Wilson et al., 2012)

A mechanistic review highlights that interference can be interpreted through competing molecular signaling and the specificity of adaptation, reinforcing that programming decisions should be explicit rather than accidental. (Coffey & Hawley, 2017)

For HYROX, this evidence interacts with the sport’s structure:

• The rulebook enforces heavy loaded stations and repeated runs. (HYROX, 2025)
• The best HYROX physiology study suggests overall performance is strongly related to aerobic capacity and endurance volume (in that cohort), implying you cannot “strength your way out” of an engine deficit without substantial running/engine work. (Brandt et al., 2025)
• Therefore, the practical constraint is not whether to do concurrent training, but how to sequence it to prioritize the athlete’s limiter while preventing the other system from deteriorating.

Sequencing rules of thumb (evidence-aligned, HYROX-specific rationale)

Because weekly hours are unspecified, these are presented as decision rules rather than fixed prescriptions:

1. If strength is the priority (strength-limited):
2. Place heavy lower-body strength earliest in the week and/or after the best recovery day; keep the next endurance session Zone 2 or controlled threshold to avoid compounding fatigue. This is consistent with interference evidence showing endurance dose/frequency affects strength outcomes and with the high fatigue cost of severe-domain work. (Wilson et al., 2012)
3. If engine is the priority (engine-limited):
4. Keep 2 strength sessions/week as a minimum effective dose (loads sufficient to maintain tendon/strength qualities), but avoid pairing long runs or VO₂ work immediately after heavy eccentric-biased lower-body sessions to reduce injury risk and preserve quality. (Wilson et al., 2012)
5. Modality management:
6. Cross-training (row/ski/cycle/elliptical) can preserve engine stimulus while reducing running tissue load, and is pragmatically supported by HYROX itself including ergometer stations and by injury-risk reasoning (HYROX injury epidemiology is still largely absent in peer-reviewed datasets). (HYROX, 2025)
7. Keep “race-specific density” as a phase-dependent variable:
8. Because stations elevate lactate/RPE and late race stress peaks at wall balls in the simulated race, high-density station→run simulations should be periodized rather than used year-round. (Brandt et al., 2025)

Testing batteries, monitoring, and decision rules

Why testing must be split-level and fatigue-aware

HYROX profiling fails if tests are only “fresh.” The sport repeatedly forces running while fatigued from stations (and vice versa). The simulated HYROX study shows high lactate and perceived exertion across the race and identifies wall balls as a late-race peak stress point. (Brandt et al., 2025)

Therefore, profiling should include:

• Fresh capacity tests (max strength, VO₂max/thresholds/CS) and
• Fatigue/transition tests (station→run penalty, post-station CMJ/IMTP decrements, decoupling across repeated runs).

Recommended testing battery (profile-minimal to profile-maximal)

Strength and neuromuscular function - IMTP peak force: systematic review indicates good-to-excellent test–retest reliability across protocols when standardized. (Grgic et al., 2022)

- CMJ: evidence supports CMJ as a reliable and sensitive monitoring tool for neuromuscular fatigue and recovery (especially when standardized). (Pojskić et al., 2025)

- 1RM variants (trap bar deadlift, squat pattern): align with resistance training progression models and provide concrete force benchmarks; exact lift selection is unspecified and should match injury history and station demands. (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009)

Engine and thresholds - VO₂max (lab preferred) and threshold testing (LT1/LT2 or VT1/VT2) to anchor intensity zones, including Zone 2 definition. (Brandt et al., 2025)

- Critical speed / critical power: CP separates stabilizable (<CP) from non-stabilizable (>CP) intensity domains; a systematic review provides practical considerations for field CS testing in runners. (Poole et al., 2016; Lipková et al., 2025)

Transition resilience - Station→1 km run penalty (single station and/or mini-simulation): quantify the athlete-specific transition cost (parameter thresholds unspecified). (Brandt et al., 2025)

- Durability / decoupling metrics: internal–external workload decoupling relates to endurance performance in very large datasets and is a practical way to quantify “holding pace at cost.” (Smyth et al., 2022)

Monitoring tools—pros/cons and decision thresholds

Key evidence sources: lactate/acidosis clarification; cardiovascular drift; respiratory metaboreflex; HRV-guided training meta-analysis; NIRS threshold reliability meta-analysis; durability/decoupling data; and adjacent HIFT evidence used cautiously as a proxy when HYROX injury datasets are absent (Coyle & González-Alonso, 2001; Dempsey et al., 2006; Düking et al., 2021; Robergs et al., 2004; Sendra-Pérez et al., 2023; Smyth et al., 2022; Villarroel López & Juárez Santos-García, 2025).

Programming templates and periodization for strength-limited vs engine-limited athletes

Profile-based periodization logic

When weekly hours are unspecified, the safest framework is to think in minimum effective dose (maintenance) for the non-limiting system and progressive overload for the limiting system, while increasing HYROX specificity as competition approaches. That aligns with (i) concurrent training interference evidence and (ii) endurance dose–response evidence showing that early training blocks can respond strongly, with diminishing returns as fitness rises. (Mølmen et al., 2025; Wilson et al., 2012)

Weekly examples (prep vs competition) for each profile

Source anchor points: HYROX station structure and loads; VO₂max/endurance volume relevance; concurrent training interference; Zone 2 definitional consensus; and endurance session-model literature for threshold and VO₂-focused work (Brandt et al., 2025; Casado et al., 2023; HYROX, 2025; Sitko et al., 2025; Wang & Wang, 2024; Wilson et al., 2012).

Weekly training hours: unspecified. Examples show structure and sequencing.

Practical session examples (profile-targeted)

Strength-limited (examples; loads and volume unspecified) - Heavy sled mechanics + strength session: lower-body heavy lift + short sled push/pull exposures at race load with full recovery to improve efficiency and reduce excessive lactate spikes. (HYROX, 2025)

- Strength-endurance wall ball progression: accumulate near-race rep counts with pacing constraints to reduce late-race breakdown (simulation identifies wall balls as peak stress). (Brandt et al., 2025)

Engine-limited - Zone 2 durability + decoupling control: long sub-LT1 sessions (per expert definition) with HR–pace decoupling monitoring. (Sitko et al., 2025)

- Threshold re-stabilization intervals: repeated controlled intervals near LT2 / “comfortably hard” anchored by lactate or threshold markers (conceptually aligned with lactate-guided threshold models), inserted after light station primers to practice hot-start control. (Casado et al., 2023)

- VO₂ block micro-cycle (short, controlled): use when VO₂max/CS is low and time-efficiency is needed; evidence suggests HIIT can improve VO₂max efficiently in athletes over several weeks, while endurance meta-regression supports higher time-efficiency for SIT/HIT early. (Wang & Wang, 2024)

Injury risk and mitigation (profile-specific)

HYROX-specific injury incidence data are not yet robust in peer-reviewed literature; therefore, coaches often borrow from adjacent evidence (HIFT/CrossFit injury epidemiology and running durability concepts), while acknowledging transfer limits. (Villarroel López & Juárez Santos-García, 2025)

• Strength-limited athletes: higher risk from abrupt increases in heavy sled/lunge volume and high-tension eccentric loads; mitigate via progressive loading and monitoring tendon tolerance (tendon adaptation evidence supports responsiveness to loading magnitude but does not justify abrupt spikes). (Bohm et al., 2015)
• Engine-limited athletes: higher risk from running volume spikes and dense station→run simulations; mitigate via cross-training, durability build (decoupling), and conservative progression of race density. (Smyth et al., 2022)

Nutrition and recovery considerations (competition constraints)

HYROX rules restrict in-race support: athletes must carry desired nutrition from the start, and hydration availability is structured through the Roxzone. Coaches should therefore train fueling/hydration strategies in simulation and ensure any supplement strategies are trialed in training because of variability and contamination risk in high-performance sport (HYROX, 2025; Maughan et al., 2018).

Finish-time modeling, case examples, and research agenda

Sensitivity analysis: how profile deficits translate to finish time

Using the simulated HYROX medians: total time 86.5 min, run time 51.2 min, station time 32.8 min, implying approximate shares: - Run share ≈ 51.2 / 86.5 ≈ 0.59

- Station share ≈ 32.8 / 86.5 ≈ 0.38

- Remainder (transitions/other) ≈ 0.03 (not a full Roxzone quantification; venue-dependent). (Brandt et al., 2025)

Implication: engine-limited deficits (run performance) generally have higher leverage than equal-percentage station deficits in the available dataset, but station deficits can drive larger secondary penalties via transition cost and pacing collapse (especially late race). (Brandt et al., 2025)

Sensitivity table

Assuming baseline finish time T and shares 0.59 (run) and 0.38 (stations), a p% change in run time changes total ≈ T×0.59×p; similarly for station time ≈ T×0.38×p. These are first-order approximations; weekly hours, course layout, and division are unspecified. (Brandt et al., 2025)

Case examples (expected outcomes by level)

These examples describe directions of change rather than guaranteed magnitudes because weekly hours, division, baseline performance, and prior training history are unspecified.

Novice - Often mixed-limited: both engine and strength-endurance deficits appear. Expect large early gains in aerobic metrics and strength with structured training; endurance meta-regression indicates lower initial fitness predicts greater % improvements in mitochondria, capillarization, and VO₂max. (Mølmen et al., 2025)

Regional competitor - Frequently shows a dominant limiter: some are strong lifters with poor durability (engine-limited), others are strong runners who “die” at wall balls/sleds (strength-limited). The simulated HYROX study’s finding that wall balls are peak stress supports emphasizing late-race skill and endurance for strength-limited athletes. (Brandt et al., 2025)

Elite/world-class - Marginal gains matter; interference management becomes central. Concurrent training evidence suggests that endurance modality/dose can affect strength/power development, so elite planning should be highly sequenced and conservative with unnecessary fatigue. (Wilson et al., 2012)

Sex differences and individual variability

Sex differences in fatigability are task-dependent; therefore, coaches should avoid assuming a universal “male vs female” fatigue pattern across HYROX stations (which vary in contraction type and velocity). This supports sex-stratified profiling and individualized blockers (e.g., wall ball fatigue tolerance vs run durability). (Hunter, 2016)

Endurance adaptation meta-regression also reports sex-related differences in percentage VO₂max gains in aggregated datasets, reinforcing that adaptation magnitude is not uniform. (Mølmen et al., 2025)

Conceptual visualization: strength-limited vs engine-limited race signatures

Conceptual “race signature” (same finish time narrative)

Strength-limited:

- Stations: force/throughput drops late; lactate spikes strongly at station peaks

- Runs: relatively stable pace if engine adequate, but large post-station penalty after heavy stations

- Monitoring: large CMJ/IMTP decrements after stations; station-to-run penalty high

Engine-limited:

- Stations: relatively stable throughput (submax strength); lactate stable-to-high but controlled

- Runs: progressive pace fade; HR drift and internal/external decoupling rise across run legs

- Monitoring: early decoupling onset; low CS/threshold; large run-split slope across repetitions

These contrasts align with (i) the HYROX simulation’s run share and wall-ball peak stress and (ii) established physiology linking fatigue, cardiovascular drift, and severe-domain instability to pace fade (Allen et al., 2008; Brandt et al., 2025; Coyle & González-Alonso, 2001; Poole et al., 2016).

Prioritized research gaps and recommended study designs

HYROX science is rapidly emerging, but peer-reviewed profiling and intervention evidence remains limited relative to the sport’s growth (e.g., participation analyses now exist with very large cohorts, but mechanistic and training RCTs are still scarce) (Fernández-Navarrete et al., 2025; Villarroel López & Juárez Santos-García, 2025).

Highest-value studies for validating “strength-limited vs engine-limited” profiling:

1. Prospective cohort profiling studies: baseline battery (IMTP/CMJ/strength tests + VT1/VT2 + CS + station throughput) predicting official split-level outcomes (runs vs stations vs Roxzone). (Grgic et al., 2022)
2. Crossover lab simulations: station-specific fatigue (sled push vs burpee broad jumps vs wall balls) followed by standardized 1 km runs, measuring transition penalty, lactate kinetics, ventilation, and neuromuscular decrements. (Brandt et al., 2025)
3. Profile-stratified RCTs (8–12 weeks): strength-limited vs engine-limited athletes randomized to profile-matched vs mismatched programs, outcomes = finish time, run split slope, station completion consistency, and injury incidence. (Wilson et al., 2012)
4. Mechanistic NIRS + CP/CS work: quantify whether local oxygenation recovery and severe-domain boundary shifts predict transition cost and which training blocks reduce that penalty most effectively. (Poole et al., 2016; Sendra-Pérez et al., 2023)

Reflective questions for coaches

• If your athlete is chasing minutes, are you targeting the highest-leverage component (running share) or the most emotionally salient component (a hated station)? (Brandt et al., 2025)
• Does your “strength-limited” athlete truly lack max strength, or do they lack station-specific efficiency and strength-endurance (i.e., wasting force and accumulating avoidable fatigue)? (Allen et al., 2008)
• Does your “engine-limited” athlete actually lack aerobic capacity, or do they lack durability (early decoupling) and post-station re-stabilization skill? (Smyth et al., 2022)
• Are you sequencing sessions to reflect your stated priority, or is interference causing your real program to differ from your intended program? (Wilson et al., 2012)
• Are you validating your profiling claims with re-tests every 4–8 weeks (or phase-appropriate cadence), or are you relying on intuition? (Grgic et al., 2022)

References

American College of Sports Medicine. (2009). American College of Sports Medicine position stand: Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41(3), 687-708. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670

Allen, D. G., Lamb, G. D., & Westerblad, H. (2008). Skeletal muscle fatigue: Cellular mechanisms. Physiological Reviews, 88(1), 287-332. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00015.2007

Bohm, S., Mersmann, F., & Arampatzis, A. (2015). Human tendon adaptation in response to mechanical loading: A systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise intervention studies on healthy adults. Sports Medicine - Open, 1, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-015-0009-9

Brandt, T., 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

Casado, A., Foster, C., Bakken, M., & Tjelta, L. I. (2023). Does lactate-guided threshold interval training within a high-volume, low-intensity approach represent the “next step” in the evolution of distance running training? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), Article 3782. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20053782

Coffey, V. G., & Hawley, J. A. (2017). Concurrent exercise training: Do opposites distract? The Journal of Physiology, 595(9), 2883-2896. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP272270

Coyle, E. F., & González-Alonso, J. (2001). Cardiovascular drift during prolonged exercise: New perspectives. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 29(2), 88-92. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003677-200104000-00009

Dempsey, J. A., Romer, L., Rodman, J., Miller, J., & Smith, C. (2006). Consequences of exercise-induced respiratory muscle work. Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, 151(2-3), 242-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resp.2005.12.015

Düking, P., Zinner, C., Trabelsi, K., Reed, J. L., Holmberg, H.-C., Kunz, P., & Sperlich, B. (2021). Monitoring and adapting endurance training on the basis of heart rate variability monitored by wearable technologies: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 24(11), 1180-1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2021.04.012

Fernández-Navarrete, I., Ruiz-Alias, S. A., Gómez-García, M., Riquelme-Sebastián, L., & García-Pinillos, F. (2025). Hyrox©: A descriptive analysis of participation trends among over 275,000 athletes in the new fitness modality. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2025.2584226

Grgic, J., Scapec, B., Mikulic, P., & Pedisic, Z. (2022). Test-retest reliability of isometric mid-thigh pull maximum strength assessment: A systematic review. Biology of Sport, 39(2), 407-414. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2022.106149

Harris, R. C., Edwards, R. H. T., Hultman, E., Nordesjö, L. O., Nylind, B., & Sahlin, K. (1976). The time course of phosphocreatine resynthesis during recovery of the quadriceps muscle in man. Pflügers Archiv, 367, 137-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00585149

Hunter, S. K. (2016). Sex differences in fatigability of dynamic contractions. Experimental Physiology, 101(2), 250-255. https://doi.org/10.1113/EP085370

HYROX. (2025). HYROX EN single rulebook 25/26. https://hyrox.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/25_26_HYROX_RulebookSingles_EN.pdf

Lipková, L., Struhár, I., Krajňák, J., Puda, D., & Kumstát, M. (2025). Field-based tests for determining critical speed among runners and its practical application: A systematic review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 7, Article 1520914. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1520914

Maughan, R. J., Burke, L. M., Dvorak, J., Larson-Meyer, D. E., Peeling, P., Phillips, S. M., Rawson, E. S., Walsh, N. P., Garthe, I., Geyer, H., Meeusen, R., van Loon, L. J. C., Shirreffs, S. M., Spriet, L. L., Stuart, M., Vernec, A., Currell, K., Ali, V. M., Budgett, R. G. M., ... Engebretsen, L. (2018). IOC consensus statement: Dietary supplements and the high-performance athlete. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(7), 439-455. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-099027

Mølmen, K. S., Almquist, N. W., & Skattebo, Ø. (2025). Effects of exercise training on mitochondrial and capillary growth in human skeletal muscle: A systematic review and meta-regression. Sports Medicine, 55, 115-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02120-2

Pojskić, H., Schiller, J., Pagels, P., Ragnarsson, T., & Melin, A. K. (2025). Are countermovement jump and isometric mid-thigh pull tests reliable, valid, and sensitive measurement instruments when performed after maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing? A sex-based analysis in elite athletes. Frontiers in Physiology, 16, Article 1663590. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1663590

Poole, D. C., Burnley, M., Vanhatalo, A., Rossiter, H. B., & Jones, A. M. (2016). Critical power: An important fatigue threshold in exercise physiology. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 48(11), 2320-2334. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000939

Robergs, R. A., Ghiasvand, F., & Parker, D. (2004). Biochemistry of exercise-induced metabolic acidosis. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 287(3), R502-R516. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00114.2004

Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(11), 1073-1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197

Sendra-Pérez, C., Sanchez-Jimenez, J. L., Marzano-Felisatti, J. M., Encarnación-Martínez, A., Salvador-Palmer, R., & Priego-Quesada, J. I. (2023). Reliability of threshold determination using portable muscle oxygenation monitors during exercise testing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 13, Article 12649. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39651-z

Sitko, S., Artetxe, X., Bonnevie-Svendsen, M., Galán-Rioja, M. Á., Gallo, G., Grappe, F., Leo, P., Mateo, M., Mujika, I., Sanders, D., Seiler, S., Zabala, M., Valenzuela, P. L., & Viribay, A. (2025). What is “Zone 2 training”?: Experts’ viewpoint on definition, training methods, and expected adaptations. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 20(11), 1614-1617. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0303

Smyth, B., Maunder, E., Meyler, S., Hunter, B., & Muniz-Pumares, D. (2022). Decoupling of internal and external workload during a marathon: An analysis of durability in 82,303 recreational runners. Sports Medicine, 52(9), 2283-2295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01680-5

Villarroel López, P., & Juárez Santos-García, D. (2025). High intensity functional training in hybrid competitions: A scoping review of performance models and physiological adaptations. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 10(4), Article 365. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk10040365

Wang, Z., & Wang, J. (2024). The effects of high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training on athletes’ aerobic endurance performance parameters. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 124(8), 2235-2249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-024-05532-0

Wilson, J. M., Marin, P. J., Rhea, M. R., Wilson, S. M. C., Loenneke, J. P., & Anderson, J. C. (2012). Concurrent training: A meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(8), 2293-2307. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823a3e2d