REF-1493 · Mangine & Seay, 2022 · Frontiers in Sports and Active Living · Paper · PubMed · Free full text

How do I compare two mixed workouts?

These authors propose repetitions per minute, but it is a proposal, not a validated rule: a higher rate can mean more fitness or an easier workout, and they cite no trial of training by it.

Main caveat: Narrative; no systematic method. Examples chosen to illustrate.
thin evidenceMeasured on trained to highly trained athletes

Mangine and Seay argue that CrossFit workloads cannot be read with traditional measures: a single workout mixes units (kg, metres, calories, bodyweight repetitions), and the same exercise means something different by where it falls in the workout.

They review the options: official work and power estimates, which rest on faulty assumptions; component pacing from video or a judge; and devices such as linear position transducers. They recommend repetition completion rate (repetitions per unit of time) because it puts workouts scored by time and by repetitions on one scale, optionally with video and devices.

They list its shortcomings and call the paper a starting point. Our reading: it gives a clear account of why mixed sessions are hard to compare and a usable idea of rate within a same-format workout. It does not validate the metric against any physiological or performance outcome and does not offer a decision rule.

Writing it into a guide as a way to progress a session would overstate it.

Protocol

Method: narrative; no search strategy or inclusion criteria.
Worked examples: Table 1, five benchmark workouts, average scores of men and women ranking within the 50th percentile; Tables 2, 3 and 5, one 95-kg athlete on "Fran" (a single illustrative example); Table 4, three athletes from public leaderboard videos of one 2020 Open workout.
Candidate methods discussed: repetition completion rate; estimated work and power; component pacing (per-exercise rate, average, fastest, slowest, slope, SD, breaks, transitions, failed repetitions); kinetics from linear position transducers.
Funding and interests: the authors declare no commercial or financial conflict; no funding statement printed.

Key Results

MethodWhat authors say it givesTheir stated shortcoming
Repetition completion rateComparable number for time-scored and repetition-scored workoutsAverages over the workout, hides pacing; a higher rate may mean greater fitness or an easier workout; non-repetition work needs a defined conversion (their example: 1 repetition every 10 m); masks number of exercises, volume load and duration
Official work and power estimateComponent contributionsAssumes constant displacement and force from mass only; power came out 1.8-3.7 times lower than transducer readings in the example
Video or judge component pacingRates, breaks, transitions, failed repetitionsTedious; used in one study and a series of posters only
Linear position transducerPer-repetition kineticsNo single device fits every exercise in a mixed workout
Example of what a rate shows: "Grace" 10.0 repetitions/min for men vs "Fran" 21.6, though both are thought of as sprints (Table 1).
No validation: no study relating repetition completion rate to adaptation, or using it to steer training, is presented. The supporting relationship between workout components is one abstract.
Stated evidence gap: no CrossFit study provides more than a list of exercises and summaries of frequency, intensity and duration; injury studies rest on surveys and did not quantify volume or sequence.

Mechanisms

Authors' interpretation: effort and physiological stress depend on placement and structure of a component, so a mismatch between training and physiology can arise unseen; a load is needed to tie to any observed response. A proposal, not tested here.
Measured (illustrative only): in one athlete's "Fran", transducer readings differed from the official estimate (+4,251 J).
Inference: rate is most defensible for the same workout repeated by the same person, since the authors' own caveat removes easier-or-fitter ambiguity only then.

Practical Application

How do I compare two mixed workouts? These authors propose repetitions per minute, but it is a proposal, not a validated rule: a higher rate can mean more fitness or an easier workout, and they cite no trial of training by it.
What it supports: comparing like with like. A changing unit (seconds one week, metres the next) makes sessions unreadable, and the authors' reasoning supports a common rate or pace, with the same format, before reading any change (inference; stations are not in the paper).
What it does not support: using a rate across different workouts as proof of progress, or a rule for how much to add. Their conversion of a run to repetitions is a chosen definition, and they say changing it would raise or lower the rate.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: the log has kg, reps, seconds and metres, not repetitions per minute; keep one unit for each station and change one axis at a time (PHYS-39).

Limitations

Narrative; no systematic method. Examples chosen to illustrate.
The metric is untested as a decision tool. No reliability figures for it are given, despite the abstract's description of it as easily and accurately tracked.
Abstract vs conclusion. The abstract encourages adopting rate; the conclusion ranks video analysis as giving most information with least error. They are different recommendations.
Possible data slip. Table 1 gives the Helen average as M 11:11 and F 10:21, faster for women and the only workout where the men's rate is lower; this may be a transposition (our reading).
Authors' framing of safety. The introduction says CrossFit presents no greater injury risk than traditional training on survey-based data, which its next paragraph criticises; do not cite it for safety.
Interests. None declared; no device maker named as a funder.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

narrative review without systematic method; held there because its central metric is untested and its examples are one athlete and three public videos. Read from the full text (open access, CC BY)

Full text (checked 2026-10-30)
Of 48 unique Open workouts, 90% used at least two exercises with different traditional workload units (full text)
Example conversion: 1 repetition every 10 m for the 400 m run in Helen (full text)
Grace rate 10.0 and Fran rate 21.6 for men (full text)
Fran example: 222 s and 0.41 repetitions per second (full text)
Transducer vs estimate: +4,251 J, and average power 1.8–3.7 times greater (full text)
Component-pacing method used in one study (60) and a series of poster presentations (61–64) (full text)
The authors call the recommendations a starting point and a call for better reporting practices (full text)