Physiological Profile and Dietary Habits of Recreational Adults Participating in Contemporary Gym-Based Exercise Modalities

Dimitrios Dragoumis; Fotios Mavrovountiotis; Evangelia Kouidi; Nikolaos Koutlianos

doi:10.20944/preprints202607.0386.v1

Submitted:

04 July 2026

Posted:

06 July 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract

Physical exercise is a major determinant of health and functional capacity, yet direct com-parisons among contemporary gym-based exercise modalities remain limited. This cross-sectional study compared the physiological and nutritional profile of 148 healthy recreational adults (72 men and 76 women; aged 18–45 years) engaged in mixed aero-bic-resistance training (n = 52), Pilates (n = 46), or CrossFit (n = 50). Participants under-went cardiopulmonary exercise testing to determine maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT), and metabolic equivalents (METs), alongside body composition analysis, handgrip strength assessment, flexibility testing, and question-naire-based evaluation of dietary habits and supplement use. CrossFit and mixed training were associated with higher VO₂max and functional capacity than Pilates, whereas Pilates demonstrated higher VAT expressed as a percentage of VO₂max. Mixed training and CrossFit also showed more favorable body composition profiles, while mixed training demonstrated superior handgrip strength, particularly in men. Flexibility did not differ significantly among exercise modalities. Mediterranean diet adherence differed signifi-cantly among men, while protein supplements and creatine were among the most fre-quently reported supplements. Overall, exercise modality was associated with distinct physiological and nutritional characteristics, with CrossFit and mixed training showing greater cardiorespiratory and body composition benefits, whereas Pilates was linked to a different submaximal exercise profile and specific lifestyle-related patterns.

Keywords:

CrossFit

;

Pilates

;

combined training

;

VO₂max

;

ventilatory anaerobic threshold

;

body composition

;

handgrip strength

;

flexibility

;

Mediterranean diet

;

dietary supplements

Subject:

Biology and Life Sciences - Anatomy and Physiology

1. Introduction

Modern lifestyle, characterized by increased sedentary behavior and reduced physical activity, has led to growing interest in exercising in organized gym environments, where different training modalities with varying intensity and focus are offered. In this context, the assessment of physical fitness through reliable and functionally meaningful indicators is considered essential both for the scientific documentation of exercise-induced adaptations and for the rational prescription of physical activity programs [1]. This approach is fully aligned with contemporary exercise testing and prescription frameworks proposed by the American College of Sports Medicine and with broader international physical activity recommendations [2,3].

Among fitness indicators, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max) is recognized as one of the most powerful and independent predictors of cardiorespiratory health and overall functional capacity. Higher VO₂max values reflect adaptations such as increased cardiac output, improved oxidative capacity of skeletal muscles, and more efficient oxygen utilization, mechanisms that are directly associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. Recent evidence also continues to support the metabolic and clinical significance of cardiorespiratory fitness and VO₂max responsiveness across exercise interventions [4,5].

Beyond VO₂max, functional capacity expressed in metabolic equivalents (METs), ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT), as well as indices of muscular strength, flexibility, and body composition, provide a multidimensional and more comprehensive picture of physical fitness, allowing a broader evaluation of functional performance and adaptation to exercise [1,2]. In applied exercise testing, these variables are particularly meaningful when interpreted within standardized assessment frameworks such as treadmill exercise testing protocols and formal exercise prescription guidelines [2,6]

In recent years, exercise in organized gym environments has diversified substantially, with the emergence and wide dissemination of different training modalities, such as CrossFit, Pilates, and mixed aerobic-resistance training, which are characterized by different training stimuli, intensity levels, and training goals [7,8,9,10]. CrossFit, as a form of high-intensity functional training, has expanded rapidly worldwide. Its training philosophy incorporates core principles of exercise science, such as progressive overload, variability, multi-joint movement patterns, and high-intensity training within a structured time frame, with the aim of improving multiple physical domains [7,11]. Fully engaging in CrossFit training has been associated with improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, and overall physical performance, although the literature also emphasizes the need for careful supervision and programming [12,13,14]. At the same time, Pilates is a widely practiced exercise method of lower to moderate intensity, with emphasis on movement control, trunk stabilization, and flexibility. Research has shown that Pilates may contribute to improvements in physical fitness, flexibility, functional stability, and quality of life, particularly in healthy and rehabilitation populations [8,15,16,17]. In addition, combined training programs, which integrate aerobic exercise and resistance training, are widely recommended by international organizations as an effective strategy for improving cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength, and body composition [1]. Concurrent training of aerobic and resistance exercise patterns has been repeatedly discussed as a balanced and effective model for producing broad physiological adaptations, although the interaction between endurance and strength stimuli may depend on exercise sequencing, training load, and participant characteristics [9,18]. Clinical and applied studies also support the effectiveness of aerobic-resistance combinations for functional health and cardiometabolic improvement [19].

Despite the widespread popularity of the aforementioned workout types, comparative studies simultaneously examining the cardiorespiratory, neuromuscular, and functional adaptations induced by these exercise modalities remain limited, especially when multiple fitness indicators and sex-related differences are taken into account [7,20]. More specifically, to the best of our knowledge, limited research appears to exist on a direct head-to-head comparison of CrossFit, Pilates, and mixed aerobic-resistance training within the same study design using a multidimensional set of outcomes including VO₂max, VAT, METs, body composition, muscular strength, and flexibility in recreational adults. In parallel, behavioral and motivational aspects may also influence long-term participation and adaptation, especially in modalities such as CrossFit and organized gym-based exercise [13].

Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the physiological and lifestyle profile of recreational adults engaged in CrossFit, Pilates, and mixed aerobic-resistance training, with emphasis on cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, muscular strength, and flexibility, evaluation of dietary habits and dietary supplement consumption, while accounting for sex-related differences. In this respect, the study seeks to address an evident gap in the current literature by providing a direct comparative analysis of these three widely practiced gym-based exercise modalities within an integrated health and fitness framework.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This study followed a cross-sectional comparative design to evaluate differences in physiological, functional and lifestyle characteristics among adults participating in three contemporary gym-based exercise modalities: CrossFit, Pilates, and mixed aerobic-resistance training. The primary outcomes were physiological and functional characteristics, including cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, muscular strength, and flexibility. Secondary outcomes included dietary habits and dietary supplement use.

2.2. Participants

Participants were recruited from ten fitness facilities located in Thessaloniki and Chalkidiki, Greece. Facilities were selected through random electronic allocation according to exercise modality. Five gyms offered all three exercise modalities, three specialized in Pilates, and two operated as CrossFit facilities. Individuals were informed about the study procedures in their exercise setting and volunteered after screening for eligibility.

Inclusion criteria were: age between 18 and 45 years, healthy status, and regular participation in the same exercise modality at least three times per week for more than twelve months [21,22,23,24,25]. Exclusion criteria included known cardiopulmonary, metabolic, or musculoskeletal disease, use of medication affecting physical performance, and injury within the last six months.

An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power (version 3.1.9.7), assuming an alpha level of 0.05 and a desired power of at least 0.90. The analysis indicated a minimum required sample of 144 participants. The final sample included 148 healthy adults (72 men and 76 women), exceeding this threshold. Participants were allocated according to their exercise modality: mixed training (n = 52), Pilates (n = 46), and CrossFit (n = 50).

2.3. Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Research Ethics and Deontology Committee of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (protocol no. 163583/2023) and was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were fully informed about the purpose and procedures of the study and provided written informed consent prior to participation.

2.4. Training Session Structure by Exercise Modality

The mixed training sessions consisted of a combination of aerobic exercise and resistance training, with a total duration of approximately 60–70 min and a frequency of at least three sessions per week, under the supervision of qualified personnel. The structure of each session was divided into warm-up, main exercise, and cool-down phases. Initially, a brief warm-up was performed, including light aerobic activity and dynamic mobilization exercises, followed by a moderate-intensity aerobic segment on a treadmill, elliptical trainer, or stationary bicycle. Subsequently, a full-body resistance training component was implemented using free weights, bodyweight exercises, and auxiliary equipment such as suspension straps (TRX) and kettlebells. The resistance component was based primarily on multi-joint exercises targeting the lower limbs, trunk, and upper body, often organized in a circuit-based format, whereas the session concluded with static stretching and gentle breathing exercises to facilitate gradual recovery.

The CrossFit training sessions followed a high-intensity interval training (HIIT)-oriented model, with a total duration of approximately 50–70 min and a minimum weekly frequency of three sessions, all performed under the supervision of certified and qualified coaches. Each session was organized into warm-up, main exercise, and cool-down phases. The warm-up aimed to progressively increase body temperature, activate the neuromuscular system, and prepare participants for the specific demands of the workout of the day (WOD). The main exercise phase followed a sequential design, beginning with a structured strength-training component and continuing with a metabolic conditioning segment. The strength component consisted of multi-joint lower- and upper-body exercises incorporating elements of weightlifting, gymnastics, and conditioning drills, with the aim of enhancing muscular strength, stability, coordination, and movement control. This was followed by a high-intensity metabolic phase, commonly implemented in AMRAP (As Many Rounds As Possible) format, in which repeated rounds of demanding exercises were performed under time pressure, combining muscular endurance, aerobic capacity, and anaerobic performance. The session concluded with a brief cool-down period consisting of static stretching and controlled breathing exercises to facilitate gradual physiological recovery.

The Pilates training sessions were structured around the core principles of trunk stabilization, movement control, and breathing-coordinated neuromuscular activation. Each session lasted approximately 50–60 min, was performed at least three times per week, and was supervised by qualified instructors. From a programming perspective, the session followed a sequential structure of warm-up, main exercise, and cool-down phases. The warm-up included gentle mobilization, breathing control, and core activation exercises to prepare the neuromuscular system and establish postural alignment and pelvic control. The main part consisted of a progressive sequence of floor-based, quadruped, and seated exercises, often supported by Pilates equipment such as small balls, resistance bands, and rings, with emphasis on the lower limbs, trunk, and upper body. Exercise selection progressed from simpler to more coordinated movement patterns, targeting stability, controlled mobility, muscular endurance, lumbopelvic stabilization, scapular control, and activation of the deep core musculature. Training load and movement complexity were continuously adjusted according to the participant’s muscular and neuromuscular level through variations in exercise type, range of motion, body position, and external props. Training intensity was generally low to moderate and was regulated according to technical execution, postural control, and perceived exertion. The session concluded with gentle static stretching and breathing exercises to promote muscular relaxation and gradual recovery.

2.5. Anthropometry and Body Composition

Body mass and height were assessed with participants wearing light clothing and no shoes. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as body mass in kilograms divided by height in meters squared (kg/m²). Body composition was estimated by bioelectrical impedance analysis using the BodyStat – Quadscan 4000 Touch (Warwickshire, UK), under standardized resting conditions and according to the manufacturer’s instructions, after avoidance of intense exercise and food or fluid intake during the preceding 8 hours [26,27,28]. Bioelectrical impedance assessment was selected as a practical field-based method for estimating body composition in recreationally active adults and for comparing fat mass, lean mass, and impedance-related variables across training modalities [29]. Variables of interest included fat mass, lean mass, phase angle, and impedance.

2.6. Cardiorespiratory Assessment

Cardiorespiratory fitness was evaluated by cardiopulmonary exercise testing using a progressive treadmill protocol based on standardized exercise testing principles and the classical Bruce framework [2,6]. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT), and functional capacity in METs were recorded. Additional ventilatory and cardiovascular variables were also monitored during testing, including heart rate and ventilation.

The achievement of maximal effort was determined according to accepted physiological criteria, including plateau in oxygen uptake, high respiratory exchange ratio (RER>1.10), and attainment of age-predicted maximal heart rate [30]. VAT was identified based on ventilatory responses and gas exchange behavior using the V-slope method [31].

2.7. Muscular Strength and Flexibility Assessment

Muscular strength was assessed using handgrip dynamometry with the Jamar 5030J1 hand dynamometer (Jamar Technologies, Horsham, PA, USA). Measurements were obtained for both the left and right hand, and dominant hand grip strength. Handgrip testing was selected as an established and reproducible indicator of upper-body isometric strength and general muscular function [32]. Flexibility was evaluated using the sit-and-reach test [33] with a specially constructed box equipped with a sliding ruler (model 01285; Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, Indiana, USA), while shoulder flexibility was assessed using the standardized back-scratch test following established field-based procedures [34]. The sit-and-reach test was selected due to its established criterion-related validity for estimating hamstring and lumbar extensibility [33].

2.8. Dietary Habits and Dietary Supplement Assessment

Dietary habits and supplement use were assessed through an anonymous questionnaire administered to the participants. The questionnaire included items regarding the systematic use of dietary and ergogenic supplements, as well as the overall dietary profile of the participants. In addition, adherence to the Mediterranean dietary pattern was evaluated through the MedDietScore, given the recognized relevance of Mediterranean dietary habits to health and physical performance outcomes [35].

Questionnaire completion was carried out in person at the participants’ exercise setting and required approximately 10 min. The supplement-related items of the questionnaire included questions about commonly used products such as proteins, creatine, vitamins, caffeine, amino acids, and carbohydrates, in line with the broader literature on dietary supplement practices and ergogenic aids in physically active populations [36,37,38].

2.9. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Normality was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests in combination with visual inspection of Q–Q plots. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square (χ²) test of independence, with results presented as frequencies and percentages. For continuous variables, two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the main effects of exercise modality and sex, as well as the exercise modality × sex interaction. When a significant interaction was observed, follow-up analyses were performed separately for men and women to examine differences across exercise modalities, with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons applied where appropriate. To further account for potential confounding variables, two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with exercise modality and sex as fixed factors and age and training age as covariates. Estimated marginal means were calculated, and Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons. When significant exercise modality × sex interactions were detected, follow-up sex-stratified ANCOVAs were performed to examine differences across exercise modalities separately in men and women. Effect sizes were reported as eta-squared (η²). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Participant Characteristics

Participant characteristics according to exercise modality are presented in Table 1. No statistically significant differences were observed among Mixed training, Pilates, and CrossFit participants in age, training age, body weight, height, or body mass index (BMI) (all p > 0.05), indicating comparable baseline characteristics across exercise modalities.

3.2. Cardiorespiratory Characteristics

Cardiorespiratory characteristics according to exercise modality and sex are presented in Table 2. Among men, significant differences were observed across exercise modalities for most cardiorespiratory variables. Mixed training and CrossFit demonstrated 35.3% and 32.3% higher METs, respectively, compared with Pilates (both p < 0.001). Similarly, relative VO₂max values were 37.9% higher in Mixed training and 34.7% higher in CrossFit compared with Pilates (both p < 0.001), while no significant differences were observed between Mixed training and CrossFit. A similar pattern was observed for absolute VO₂max (ml·min⁻¹), with Mixed training and CrossFit exceeding Pilates by 38.3% and 33.6%, respectively (both p < 0.001). For VO₂ at VAT expressed relative to body mass, Mixed training demonstrated 21.7% higher values compared with Pilates (p = 0.001), whereas CrossFit did not differ significantly from either group. When expressed in absolute terms (ml·min⁻¹), Mixed training exceeded Pilates by 23.1% (p = 0.001), while CrossFit did not differ significantly from the remaining groups. In contrast, anaerobic threshold expressed as percentage of VO₂max was 22.5% higher in Pilates compared with CrossFit (p = 0.003), whereas Mixed training did not differ significantly from either group. No statistically significant differences were observed for anaerobic threshold expressed as percentage of HRmax. Among women, significant differences were also observed for several cardiorespiratory variables. CrossFit demonstrated the highest MET values, exceeding Pilates by 35.4% and Mixed training by 10.1% (both p < 0.001). Likewise, relative VO₂max values were 34.9% higher in CrossFit and 22.6% higher in Mixed training compared with Pilates (both p < 0.001), while CrossFit also demonstrated significantly higher values than Mixed training. Absolute VO₂max (ml·min⁻¹) was 32.1% higher in CrossFit and 23.7% higher in Mixed training compared with Pilates (both p < 0.001), with no differences observed between Mixed training and CrossFit. No statistically significant differences were observed for VO₂ at VAT, either relative or absolute. However, anaerobic threshold expressed as percentage of VO₂max was 27.0% higher in Pilates compared with CrossFit and 18.1% higher compared with Mixed training (both p < 0.001), while no significant differences were observed between Mixed training and CrossFit. No statistically significant differences were identified for anaerobic threshold expressed as percentage of HRmax.

Adjusted mean values according to exercise modality are presented in Table 3. After adjustment for age and training age, both Mixed training and CrossFit demonstrated significantly higher relative VO₂max values compared with Pilates (both p < 0.05), whereas no significant difference was observed between Mixed training and CrossFit. These findings further support the superior cardiorespiratory performance observed in participants engaged in Mixed training and CrossFit modalities.

3.3. Body Composition Characteristics

Body composition characteristics according to exercise modality and sex are presented in Table 4. Among men, significant differences were observed across several body composition indicators. Fat mass was 44.4% higher in Pilates compared with Mixed training and 41.7% higher compared with CrossFit (both p = 0.004), while no significant difference was observed between Mixed training and CrossFit. In contrast, lean mass percentage was 9.7% higher in Mixed training and 7.6% higher in CrossFit compared with Pilates (p = 0.002), with no significant difference between the two modalities. For absolute lean mass, Mixed training demonstrated 11.5% higher values compared with Pilates (p = 0.003), whereas CrossFit did not differ significantly from either group. Similarly, phase angle values were higher in both Mixed training and CrossFit compared with Pilates (p = 0.041), without significant differences between the former two modalities. Conversely, impedance was 16.2% higher in Pilates compared with Mixed training and 15.7% higher compared with CrossFit (p = 0.006), while no difference was observed between Mixed training and CrossFit.

Among women, significant differences were observed for selected body composition indicators. Fat mass differed significantly across exercise modalities (p = 0.012), with Pilates demonstrating 38.9% higher values compared with CrossFit, whereas Mixed training did not differ significantly from either group. Lean mass percentage was 6.9% higher in Mixed training and 8.7% higher in CrossFit compared with Pilates (p = 0.009), with no significant difference between the two modalities. No statistically significant differences were observed for absolute lean mass or phase angle among women. However, impedance was 11.3% higher in Pilates compared with Mixed training and 17.6% higher compared with CrossFit (p = 0.015), whereas no significant difference was observed between Mixed training and CrossFit.

Adjusted mean values according to exercise modality are presented in Table 5. After adjustment for age and training age, Pilates participants demonstrated significantly higher fat mass percentage compared with both Mixed training and CrossFit participants (both p < 0.001), whereas no significant difference was observed between Mixed training and CrossFit.

3.4. Muscular Strength and Flexibility

Muscular strength and flexibility characteristics according to exercise modality and sex are presented in Table 6. Among men, significant differences were observed for handgrip strength measures. Mixed training demonstrated 19.1% higher left-hand grip strength compared with Pilates (p = 0.006) and 15.2% higher dominant handgrip strength compared with Pilates (p = 0.005), while CrossFit demonstrated intermediate values. Specifically, Mixed training exceeded both Pilates and CrossFit in left-hand and dominant handgrip strength, whereas for right-hand grip strength, Mixed training demonstrated 16.8% higher values compared with Pilates (p = 0.011), with CrossFit not differing significantly from either group. In contrast, no statistically significant differences were observed among men for flexibility measures, including sit-and-reach and back scratch performance. Among women, no statistically significant differences were observed across exercise modalities for handgrip strength or flexibility measures. Although Mixed training and CrossFit tended to demonstrate slightly higher muscular strength values compared with Pilates, these differences did not reach statistical significance.

Adjusted dominant handgrip strength values according to exercise modality are presented in Table 7. After adjustment for age and training age, Mixed training participants demonstrated significantly higher dominant handgrip strength compared with Pilates participants (p < 0.05). CrossFit participants demonstrated intermediate values and did not differ significantly from either Mixed training or Pilates. These findings suggest that participation in Mixed training may be associated with greater muscular strength performance compared with Pilates, independent of the examined covariates.

3.5. Dietary Habits and Dietary Supplement Use

Mediterranean Diet

Mediterranean diet score across exercise modalities and sex groups is summarized in Table 8. Among men, a statistically significant difference was observed in Mediterranean diet score (p = 0.008). Post-hoc analysis indicated that Pilates participants demonstrated higher adherence compared with both Mixed training and CrossFit, while no significant difference was observed between the latter two groups.

In contrast, no statistically significant differences were observed among women (p = 0.053), although a non-significant trend toward higher scores was evident in CrossFit participants.

ANCOVA examining Mediterranean diet score according to exercise modality after adjustment for age and training age (Table 9) did not reveal statistically significant differences between exercise modalities (p = 0.091). Although Pilates participants demonstrated slightly higher adjusted Mediterranean diet scores compared with Mixed training and CrossFit participants, these differences did not reach statistical significance.

3.6. Dietary Supplement Use

Of the 148 participants, most reported not taking dietary supplements (57.4%), whereas 42.6% stated that they intake certain nutritional supplements. A comparison of dietary supplement use between men and women is provided in Table 10. Protein and creatine supplementation was more frequently reported by men, whereas women tended to report slightly higher use of selected micronutrients and amino acids. Despite these differences in distribution, the overall association between sex and supplement category was not statistically significant (p = 0.362), suggesting that supplement use patterns were largely similar between sexes.

When considering the underlying reasons for supplement use (Table 11), performance-related motives predominated, particularly in relation to protein and creatine intake. In contrast, vitamins and amino acids were relatively more common among participants reporting appearance-related goals, while iron supplementation appeared more frequently in the context of medical reasons. Nevertheless, these patterns did not translate into a statistically significant association (p = 0.132), indicating that the observed differences should be interpreted cautiously.

Patterns of supplement use across exercise modalities (Table 12) revealed some differences in distribution, although these did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.070). Participants engaged in CrossFit reported comparatively higher use of performance-oriented supplements, including proteins, creatine, and amino acids. By contrast, vitamin use was more prevalent among Pilates participants, while individuals in Mixed training generally reported lower frequencies across most supplement categories.

4. Discussion

The present study compared the physiological and lifestyle profiles of male and female recreational adults participating in CrossFit, Pilates, and mixed aerobic-resistance training within organized gym environments. The findings indicate that exercise modality is associated with clear differences in cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, and muscular strength, whereas flexibility did not differ significantly across groups.

One of the main findings was the superior cardiorespiratory profile of CrossFit and mixed training compared to Pilates. Both men and women participating in these higher-intensity modalities exhibited higher VO₂max and MET values. These results are consistent with the physiological demands of CrossFit and mixed training, which typically involve greater aerobic and metabolic stress than Pilates [7,9,11,14,18]. The higher adjusted VO₂max and MET values observed in these groups suggest that both modalities may offer stronger stimuli for improving cardiorespiratory fitness in recreational adults, a finding that is also in line with the broader clinical importance attributed to cardiorespiratory fitness as a health marker [20,39].

At the same time, Pilates participants showed higher VAT values when expressed as a percentage of VO₂max. This pattern is noteworthy because it suggests that although Pilates participants had lower maximal aerobic capacity, they reached ventilatory threshold at a relatively greater proportion of that capacity. One plausible interpretation is that Pilates training may enhance tolerance and control at submaximal intensity levels through breathing regulation, trunk control, and sustained low-to-moderate effort. This interpretation is consistent with the general training philosophy of Pilates and with reports emphasizing its contribution to movement control, functional stability, respiratory regulation, and selected aspects of physical fitness [8,16,17]. However, because absolute VO₂ and MET values remained lower in Pilates, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence of superior overall cardiorespiratory fitness.

Body composition outcomes also favored CrossFit and mixed aerobic-resistance training. In both sexes, Pilates participants exhibited higher fat mass and less favorable impedance-related indices. These findings may reflect the lower overall energy expenditure and lower intensity profile generally associated with Pilates compared with modalities incorporating aerobic loading and resistance training. The observation that sex did not significantly influence adjusted fat mass suggests that the exercise modality itself may play a substantial role in shaping body composition within this age range. This pattern is compatible with prior reports showing favorable body composition changes in high-intensity functional training and concurrent training settings [14,19,40].

Regarding muscular strength, mixed training produced the most favorable handgrip outcomes, especially in men. This may reflect the regular inclusion of resistance exercise with external loads, which can provide a direct stimulus for upper-body force production. CrossFit showed intermediate strength values, while Pilates demonstrated the lowest grip strength values in men. In women, however, no significant strength differences were observed across modalities, which may be related to smaller between-group variation or lower modality-specific divergence in upper-body loading. In general, the present findings support the idea that resistance-based or mixed exercise models may be more effective for enhancing strength-related outcomes than lower-intensity movement-focused modalities [1,9,18]. The handgrip findings are consistent with the literature, which suggests that handgrip strength is a valid marker of overall muscular function and functional status, but not a highly specific indicator of the distinct physiological adaptations elicited by each training modality [41,42]. More specifically, mixed aerobic-resistance exercise has been associated with more favorable handgrip strength values than more unidimensional exercise patterns, which supports the superiority of the mixed training group in the present sample. At the same time, although Pilates is not primarily designed to enhance maximal isometric gripping force, it appears capable of maintaining or improving selected aspects of muscular function and physical performance [43], which may explain why the women in the Pilates group were not markedly lower than those in the other groups. In addition, the literature on high-intensity multimodal training modalities such as CrossFit is characterized by substantial heterogeneity in terms of exercise prescription, loading parameters, and outcome assessment [44], and therefore superiority should not be expected across every isolated strength variable. Accordingly, the absence of significant between-group differences in female handgrip strength should not be considered paradoxical, but rather indicative of the fact that this variable may be influenced more strongly by broader biological and functional determinants than by modality-specific training differences alone.

Contrary to common expectations, flexibility did not differ significantly among exercise groups in either sex. Although Pilates is often assumed to confer superior flexibility benefits, this pattern was not statistically confirmed in the present sample. It is possible that recreational participation in all three modalities was sufficient to maintain similar levels of flexibility, or that the selected field tests were not sensitive enough to detect modality-specific mobility adaptations. At the same time, the majority of Pilates literature supports beneficial effects on flexibility, functional movement, and selected cardiorespiratory indices, but mainly in targeted interventions and specific populations [8,15,16,17,29,40].

The dietary findings add an additional interpretive layer to the physiological results. In men, the higher Mediterranean diet score observed in the Pilates group suggests that differences between exercise modalities may not depend exclusively on training stimulus but may also reflect broader lifestyle patterns. This is consistent with the literature indicating that dietary quality, adherence to healthier eating patterns, and exercise behavior often cluster together within specific physically active populations and may contribute to broader health-related adaptations [45]. At the same time, the lack of statistically significant between-group differences in the total Mediterranean diet score among women suggests that the relationship between exercise modality and dietary profile may not be uniform across sexes.

The results concerning dietary supplement use also provide useful contextual information. A total of 42.6% of the participants used nutritional supplements. This finding is of particular interest when viewed against the literature, where dietary supplement use in gym-based populations has been reported at 36.3% in Middle East and 37.8% in Saudi Arabia, with protein supplements, omega-3 fatty acids, and multivitamins among the most common choices [46,47]. Indeed, protein supplements and creatine were among the most frequently reported products, particularly in participants engaged in CrossFit and mixed training, which is consistent with the greater emphasis of these modalities on performance, recovery, and body composition goals. This pattern is in line with the broader sports nutrition literature, where protein, creatine, caffeine, vitamins, and other ergogenic aids are commonly used in physically active and performance-oriented populations [36,37,38,45]. Although the observed associations did not always reach statistical significance, they suggest that supplement practices may reflect the culture, motivational orientation, and performance-related demands of each training modality.

The findings about the diet habits and the use of nutritional supplements are important because they indicate that exercise modality may be associated not only with distinct physiological profiles, but also with different nutritional behaviors and supplement-use patterns. Therefore, the interpretation of body composition and performance-related findings should be made with awareness that part of the observed variation may also reflect lifestyle and nutritional factors and not training stimulus alone. In this sense, dietary quality and supplement behavior may operate as parallel lifestyle dimensions that interact with exercise participation rather than as isolated background variables [37,45].

Taken together, these results support the view that different gym-based exercise modalities generate distinct physiological profiles. In addition, the present study contributes novelty to the literature by offering, to the best of our knowledge, the first direct comparison of CrossFit, Pilates, and mixed training across a broad set of cardiorespiratory, body composition, strength, and flexibility indicators within the same recreational adult sample. CrossFit and mixed aerobic-resistance training appear more advantageous for cardiorespiratory fitness and body composition, while mixed training may provide additional benefit for grip strength. Pilates, while associated with lower maximal aerobic capacity, may still offer advantages related to submaximal control, movement quality, and lifestyle-related behavior patterns. Therefore, exercise prescription should be individualized according to specific health, fitness, and behavioral goals.

The study is characterized by several important methodological strengths. First, the relatively large and balanced sample of healthy adults of both sexes enhances statistical power and allows for the simultaneous investigation of the effects and interactions of sex and exercise modality. Furthermore, the multifactorial approach, incorporating anthropometric, cardiorespiratory and functional indices, provides a comprehensive characterization of the physiological profile of the participants. Additional value also lies in the comparison of three contemporary and widely practiced exercise modalities under real-world fitness center conditions, thereby enhancing the ecological validity of the findings and their applicability to both training and clinical practice. Importantly, the comparative role of the study should be particularly emphasized, as it addresses a clear gap in the literature by directly comparing three of the most popular contemporary exercise modalities practiced in gym settings—CrossFit, Pilates, and mixed training—within the same methodological framework. To the best of our knowledge, this study is among the first to examine these modalities simultaneously in a recreational adult sample using a multidimensional set of functional indicators. In this respect, its contribution is not only comparative but also innovative, as it provides an integrated and clinically relevant perspective on how the most prevalent gym-based exercise models may differentially shape physiological and lifestyle-related adaptations.

Despite these strengths, certain limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. The cross-sectional design of the study does not allow for the establishment of causal relationships or the assessment of long-term adaptations. In addition, participant allocation was based on their pre-selected exercise modality rather than randomization, which may introduce systematic differences related to pre-existing characteristics or motivations. Finally, despite the extensive assessment of physiological parameters, variables such as precise long-term training load, adherence to exercise programs, and specific dietary details could not be controlled with absolute accuracy. Therefore, the findings of the present study should be interpreted within the context of these methodological considerations, while future longitudinal and randomized interventional studies may further expand the understanding of adaptations associated with contemporary forms of exercise.

5. Conclusions

Exercise modality was associated with distinct physiological and nutritional characteristics in recreational adults, confirming that different gym-based exercise models are linked to different adaptation profiles. CrossFit and mixed training were consistently associated with superior cardiorespiratory fitness and more favorable body composition compared with Pilates, while mixed training demonstrated the most advantageous handgrip strength profile, particularly in men. By contrast, Pilates was characterized by a higher VAT expressed as a percentage of VO₂max, suggesting a different submaximal exercise profile that may reflect greater movement control and tolerance at lower exercise intensities rather than superior overall aerobic fitness. Flexibility did not differ significantly between exercise modalities, indicating that this parameter may be less sensitive to modality-specific differences under recreational training conditions. In addition, the dietary findings suggest that exercise modality may also be associated with broader lifestyle-related patterns, including Mediterranean diet adherence and supplement-use practices, which should be considered when interpreting exercise-related adaptations. The findings support the view that high-intensity and mixed aerobic-resistance exercise modalities may be more effective for improving cardiorespiratory fitness, functional capacity, and body composition, whereas Pilates may offer distinct benefits related to submaximal regulation, movement quality, and lifestyle behavior. Therefore, exercise prescription in organized gym environments should be individualized according to the primary health, functional, and behavioral goals of each exerciser.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.D., N.K., E.K.; methodology, D.D. and N.K.; formal analysis, D.D.; investigation, D.D.; data curation, D.D.; writing—original draft preparation, D.D., N.K.; writing—review and editing, D.D., N.K., F.M., E.K.; supervision, N.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The: study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics and Deontology Committee of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (protocol code 163583/2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participating fitness facilities and all volunteers who contributed to the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Garber, C.E.; Blissmer, B.; Deschenes, M.R.; Franklin, B.A.; Lamonte, M.J.; Lee, I.-M.; Nieman, D.C.; Swain, D.P. Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory, Musculoskeletal, and Neuromotor Fitness in Apparently Healthy Adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011, 43, 1334–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 12th ed.; 2025. [Google Scholar]
Bull, F.C.; Al-Ansari, S.S.; Biddle, S.; Borodulin, K.; Buman, M.P.; Cardon, G.; Carty, C.; Chaput, J.-P.; Chastin, S.; Chou, R.; et al. World Health Organization 2020 Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour. Br. J. Sports Med. 2020, 54, 1451–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bork, J.; Markus, M.R.P.; Ewert, R.; Nauck, M.; Templin, C.; Völzke, H.; Kastenmüller, G.; Artati, A.; Adamski, J.; Dörr, M.; et al. The Metabolic Signature of Cardiorespiratory Fitness. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2025, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Castro, A.; Ferreira, A.G.; Catai, A.M.; Amaral, M.A.B.; Cavaglieri, C.R.; Chacon-Mikahil, M.P.T. Metabolic Predictors of Cardiorespiratory Fitness Responsiveness to Continuous Endurance and High-Intensity Interval Training Programs: The TIMES Study—A Randomized Controlled Trial. Metabolites 2024, 14, 512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bruce, R.A.; Blackmon, J.R.; Jones, J.W.; Strait, G. Exercising Testing in Adult Normal Subjects and Cardiac Patients*. Ann. Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2004, 9, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Claudino, J.G.; Gabbett, T.J.; Bourgeois, F.; Souza, H. de S.; Miranda, R.C.; Mezêncio, B.; Soncin, R.; Cardoso Filho, C.A.; Bottaro, M.; Hernandez, A.J.; et al. CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. Open 2018, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fernández-Rodríguez, R.; Álvarez-Bueno, C.; Ferri-Morales, A.; Torres-Costoso, A.I.; Cavero-Redondo, I.; Martínez-Vizcaíno, V. Pilates Method Improves Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chen, Y.; Feng, X.; Huang, L.; Wang, K.; Mi, J. Comparative Efficacy of Concurrent Training Types on Lower Limb Strength and Muscular Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. J. Exerc. Sci. Fit. 2024, 22, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Newsome, A.M.; Batrakoulis, A.; Camhi, S.M.; McAvoy, C.; Sansone, J.; Reed, R. 2025 ACSM Worldwide Fitness Trends: Future Directions of the Health and Fitness Industry. ACSMs Health Fit. J. 2024, 28, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schlegel, P. CrossFit® Training Strategies from the Perspective of Concurrent Training: A Systematic Review. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2020, 19, 670–680. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Feito, Y.; Burrows, E.K.; Tabb, L.P. A 4-Year Analysis of the Incidence of Injuries Among CrossFit-Trained Participants. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2018, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ferdinando, C. CrossFit®: A Multidimensional Analysis of Physiological Adaptations, Psychological Benefits, and Strategic Considerations for Optimal Training. J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2025, 25, 601–610. [Google Scholar]
Murawska-Cialowicz, E.; Wojna, J.; Zuwala-Jagiello, J. Crossfit Training Changes Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor and Irisin Levels at Rest, after Wingate and Progressive Tests, and Improves Aerobic Capacity and Body Composition of Young Physically Active Men and Women. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2015, 66, 811–821. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Meikis, L.; Wicker, P.; Donath, L. Effects of Pilates Training on Physiological and Psychological Health Parameters in Healthy Older Adults and in Older Adults With Clinical Conditions Over 55 Years: A Meta-Analytical Review. Front. Neurol. 2021, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Adıgüzel, S.; Aras, D.; Gülü, M.; Aldhahi, M.I.; Alqahtani, A.S.; AL-Mhanna, S.B. Comparative Effectiveness of 10-Week Equipment-Based Pilates and Diaphragmatic Breathing Exercise on Heart Rate Variability and Pulmonary Function in Young Adult Healthy Women with Normal BMI – a Quasi-Experimental Study. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2023, 15, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Byrnes, K.; Wu, P.-J.; Whillier, S. Is Pilates an Effective Rehabilitation Tool? A Systematic Review. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2018, 22, 192–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Eddens, L.; van Someren, K.; Howatson, G. The Role of Intra-Session Exercise Sequence in the Interference Effect: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2018, 48, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Alemayehu, Addis; Teferi, Getu. Effectiveness of Aerobic, Resistance, and Combined Training for Hypertensive Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ethiop. J. Health Sci. 2023, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ross, R.; Blair, S.N.; Arena, R.; Church, T.S.; Després, J.-P.; Franklin, B.A.; Haskell, W.L.; Kaminsky, L.A.; Levine, B.D.; Lavie, C.J.; et al. Importance of Assessing Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Clinical Practice: A Case for Fitness as a Clinical Vital Sign: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2016, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mari, L.; D’Alleva, M.; Graniero, F.; Azzini, V.; Fiori, F.; Marinoni, M.; De Martino, M.; Rejc, E.; Zaccaron, S.; Stafuzza, J.; et al. Effects of 12 Months of Structured Physical Activity Program and 18-Month Follow-Up Period on Body Composition, Physical Capacities, and Physical Activity Levels in Adults with Obesity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22, 665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nickels, M.; Mastana, S.; Denniff, M.; Codd, V.; Akam, E. Pilates and Telomere Dynamics: A 12-Month Longitudinal Study. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2022, 30, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mangine, G.T.; Stratton, M.T.; Almeda, C.G.; Roberts, M.D.; Esmat, T.A.; VanDusseldorp, T.A.; Feito, Y. Physiological Differences between Advanced CrossFit Athletes, Recreational CrossFit Participants, and Physically-Active Adults. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0223548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rayes, A.B.R.; de Lira, C.A.B.; Viana, R.B.; Benedito-Silva, A.A.; Vancini, R.L.; Mascarin, N.; Andrade, M.S. The Effects of Pilates vs. Aerobic Training on Cardiorespiratory Fitness, Isokinetic Muscular Strength, Body Composition, and Functional Tasks Outcomes for Individuals Who Are Overweight/Obese: A Clinical Trial. PeerJ 2019, 7, e6022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Camacho-Cardenosa, A.; Timón, R.; Camacho-Cardenosa, M.; Guerrero-Flores, S.; Olcina, G.; Marcos-Serrano, M. Six-Months CrossFit Training Improves Metabolic Efficiency in Young Trained Men (Seis Meses de CrossFit Mejora La Eficiencia Metabólica En Jóvenes Entrenados). Cult. Cienc. Y Deporte 2020, 15, 421–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Clasey, J.L.; Bradley, K.D.; Bradley, J.W.; Long, D.E.; Griffith, J.R. A New BIA Equation Estimating the Body Composition of Young Children. Obesity 2011, 19, 1813–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Korzilius, J.W.; Oppenheimer, S.E.; de Roos, N.M.; Wanten, G.J.A.; Zweers, H. Having Breakfast Has No Clinically Relevant Effect on Bioelectrical Impedance Measurements in Healthy Adults. Nutr. J. 2023, 22, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kilduff, L.P.; Lewis, S.; Kingsley, M.I.C.; Owen, N.J.; Dietzig, R.E. Reliability and Detecting Change Following Short-Term Creatine Supplementation: Comparison of Two-Component Body Composition Methods. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007, 21, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Menargues-Ramírez, R.; Sospedra, I.; Holway, F.; Hurtado-Sánchez, J.A.; Martínez-Sanz, J.M. Evaluation of Body Composition in CrossFit® Athletes and the Relation with Their Results in Official Training. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
HOWLEY, E.T.; BASSETT, D.R.; WELCH, H.G. Criteria for Maximal Oxygen Uptake. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1995, 27, 1292–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Beaver, W.L.; Wasserman, K.; Whipp, B.J. A New Method for Detecting Anaerobic Threshold by Gas Exchange. J. Appl. Physiol. 1986, 60, 2020–2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gerodimos, V.; Karatrantou, K.; Psychou, D.; Vasilopoulou, T.; Zafeiridis, A. Static and Dynamic Handgrip Strength Endurance: Test-Retest Reproducibility. J. Hand Surg. Am. 2017, 42, e175–e184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mayorga-Vega, D.; Merino-Marbán, R.; Viciana, J. Criterion-Related Validity of Sit-And-Reach Tests for Estimating Hamstring and Lumbar Extensibility: A Meta-Analysis. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2014, 13, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rikli, R.E.; Jones, C.Jessie. Senior Fitness Test Manual, 2nd ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, 2013; ISBN 9781450411189. [Google Scholar]
Panagiotakos, D.B.; Pitsavos, C.; Stefanadis, C. Dietary Patterns: A Mediterranean Diet Score and Its Relation to Clinical and Biological Markers of Cardiovascular Disease Risk. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2006, 16, 559–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Guest, N.S.; VanDusseldorp, T.A.; Nelson, M.T.; Grgic, J.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Jenkins, N.D.M.; Arent, S.M.; Antonio, J.; Stout, J.R.; Trexler, E.T.; et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: Caffeine and Exercise Performance. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2021, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Martinho, D. V.; Rebelo, A.; Clemente, F.M.; Costa, R.; Gouveia, É.R.; Field, A.; Casonatto, J.; van den Hoek, D.; Durkalec-Michalski, K.; Ormsbee, M.J.; et al. Nutrition in CrossFit® – Scientific Evidence and Practical Perspectives: A Systematic Scoping Review. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2025, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kerksick, C.M.; Arent, S.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Stout, J.R.; Campbell, B.; Wilborn, C.D.; Taylor, L.; Kalman, D.; Smith-Ryan, A.E.; Kreider, R.B.; et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: Nutrient Timing. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2017, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kodama, S. Cardiorespiratory Fitness as a Quantitative Predictor of All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Events in Healthy Men and Women. JAMA 2009, 301, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Blanco-Martínez, N.; González-Devesa, D.; Sanchez-Lastra, M.A.; Diz-Gómez, J.C.; Ayán-Pérez, C. The Effects of CrossFit® Training in Adults with Obese or Overweight: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Med. De Fam. SEMERGEN 2025, 51, 102512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bohannon, R.W. Considerations and Practical Options for Measuring Muscle Strength: A Narrative Review. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tomkinson, G.R.; Lang, J.J.; Rubín, L.; McGrath, R.; Gower, B.; Boyle, T.; Klug, M.G.; Mayhew, A.J.; Blake, H.T.; Ortega, F.B.; et al. International Norms for Adult Handgrip Strength: A Systematic Review of Data on 2.4 Million Adults Aged 20 to 100+ Years from 69 Countries and Regions. J. Sport Health Sci. 2025, 14, 101014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Aibar-Almazán, A.; Martínez-Amat, A.; Cruz-Díaz, D.; Jesús de la Torre-Cruz, M.; Jiménez-García, J.D.; Zagalaz-Anula, N.; Redecillas-Peiró, M.T.; Mendoza-Ladrón de Guevara, N.; Hita-Contreras, F. The Influence of Pilates Exercises on Body Composition, Muscle Strength, and Gait Speed in Community-Dwelling Older Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 2298–2305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sharp, T.; Slattery, K.; Coutts, A.J.; van Gogh, M.; Ralph, L.; Wallace, L. Solving the High-Intensity Multimodal Training Prescription Puzzle: A Systematic Mapping Review. Sports Med. Open 2024, 10, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Griffiths, A.; Matu, J.; Whyte, E.; Akin-Nibosun, P.; Clifford, T.; Stevenson, E.; Shannon, O.M. The Mediterranean Dietary Pattern for Optimising Health and Performance in Competitive Athletes: A Narrative Review. Br. J. Nutr. 2022, 128, 1285–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
El Khoury, D.; Antoine-Jonville, S. Intake of Nutritional Supplements among People Exercising in Gyms in Beirut City. J. Nutr. Metab. 2012, 2012, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jawadi, A.H.; Addar, A.M.; Alazzam, A.S.; Alrabieah, F.O.; Al Alsheikh, A.S.; Amer, R.R.; Aldrees, A.A.S.; Al Turki, M.A.; Osman, A.K.; Badri, M. Prevalence of Dietary Supplements Use among Gymnasium Users. J. Nutr. Metab. 2017, 2017, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Table 1. Participant characteristics by exercise modality.

Variable	Mixed training (n = 52)	Pilates (n = 46)	CrossFit (n = 50)	p	η²
Variable	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	p	η²
Age (years)	33.67 ± 6.01	33.80 ± 7.26	32.02 ± 5.80	0.301	0.02
Training age (years)	3.56 ± 2.16	2.98 ± 1.86	3.52 ± 2.17	0.316	0.02
Body weight (kg)	74.58 ± 15.54	73.07 ± 14.08	72.67 ± 13.00	0.777	0.00
Height (cm)	174.54 ± 8.84	173.89 ± 7.67	172.32 ± 10.40	0.451	0.01
BMI (kg/m²)	24.29 ± 3.61	24.08 ± 3.86	24.30 ± 2.53	0.937	0.00

Notes: Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). BMI, body mass index. Group differences were examined using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). η², eta-squared effect size.

Table 2. Cardiorespiratory characteristics by exercise modality and sex.

A. Males
	Mixed training (n = 26)	Pilates (n = 21)	CrossFit (n = 25)
Variable	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	p	η²
METs	13.79 ± 2.66ᵃ	10.19 ± 2.54ᵇ	13.48 ± 1.87ᵃ	<0.001	0.31
VO₂max (ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹)	48.22 ± 9.33ᵃ	34.97 ± 9.11ᵇ	47.10 ± 6.36ᵃ	<0.001	0.33
VO₂ at VAT (ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹)	24.08 ± 4.75ᵃ	19.79 ± 3.18ᵇ	21.78 ± 2.52ᵃᵇ	0.001	0.19
VO₂max (ml·min⁻¹)	4027.62 ± 642.06ᵃ	2912.14 ± 737.62ᵇ	3891.88 ± 572.59ᵃ	<0.001	0.36
VO₂ at VAT (ml·min⁻¹)	2034.96 ± 418.56ᵃ	1652.90 ± 301.67ᵇ	1798.76 ± 226.73ᵇ	0.001	0.19
Anaerobic threshold (%VO₂max)	50.54 ± 9.19ᵃᵇ	57.29 ± 11.64ᵃ	46.76 ± 9.44ᵇ	0.003	0.16
Anaerobic threshold (%HRmax)	67.65 ± 7.58	70.10 ± 8.64	65.08 ± 8.78	0.132	0.06
B. Females
	Mixed training (n = 26)	Pilates (n = 25)	CrossFit (n = 25)
Variable	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	p	η²
METs	11.33 ± 1.40ᵇ	9.22 ± 1.70ᶜ	12.48 ± 1.38ᵃ	<0.001	0.45
VO₂max (ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹)	39.60 ± 4.89ᵇ	32.30 ± 5.94ᶜ	43.59 ± 4.80ᵃ	<0.001	0.45
VO₂ at VAT (ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹)	22.13 ± 2.98	20.86 ± 2.89	22.75 ± 3.07	0.080	0.07
VO₂max (ml·min⁻¹)	2525.35 ± 367.90ᵃ	2042.24 ± 301.61ᵇ	2696.84 ± 403.91ᵃ	<0.001	0.38
VO₂ at VAT (ml·min⁻¹)	1413.23 ± 235.43	1327.96 ± 202.25	1406.00 ± 232.58	0.331	0.03
Anaerobic threshold (%VO₂max)	55.77 ± 8.23ᵇ	65.88 ± 13.51ᵃ	51.80 ± 6.80ᵇ	<0.001	0.27
Anaerobic threshold (%HRmax)	67.81 ± 18.81	68.40 ± 22.11	68.64 ± 7.22	0.981	0.00

Notes: Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). VO₂max, maximal oxygen uptake; VAT, ventilatory anaerobic threshold; HRmax, maximum heart rate; METs, metabolic equivalents. η², eta-squared effect size. Group differences were assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) separately for men and women. Post-hoc comparisons were performed using Bonferroni correction. Different superscript letters denote statistically significant differences between groups (p < 0.05); shared letters indicate no significant difference.

Table 3. Adjusted relative VO₂max according to exercise modality.

Exercise modality	Adjusted VO₂max (ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) Mean ± SE	95% CI for Mean
Mixed training	44.05 ± 0.93ᵃ	42.20 – 45.90
Pilates	33.87 ± 1.00ᵇ	31.88 – 35.85
CrossFit	44.98 ± 0.96ᵃ	43.08 – 46.88

Notes: Values are presented as estimated marginal means ± standard error (SE), adjusted for age and training age. VO₂max, maximal oxygen uptake; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval. Pairwise comparisons were performed using Bonferroni correction. Different superscript letters denote statistically significant differences between groups (p < 0.05); shared letters indicate no significant difference.

Table 4. Body composition characteristics by exercise modality and sex.

A. Males
	Mixed training (n = 26)	Pilates (n = 21)	CrossFit (n = 25)
Variable	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	p	η²
Fat mass (kg)	12.94 ± 7.93ᵇ	18.68 ± 6.93ᵃ	13.18 ± 4.86ᵇ	0.004	0.15
Lean mass (%)	86.08 ± 8.62ᵃ	78.50 ± 4.59ᵇ	84.46 ± 5.05ᵃ	0.002	0.18
Lean mass (kg)	72.63 ± 9.16ᵃ	65.14 ± 4.97ᵇ	70.01 ± 5.84ᵃᵇ	0.003	0.16
Phase angle (°)	7.81 ± 2.96ᵃ	6.46 ± 0.80ᵇ	7.75 ± 1.88ᵃ	0.041	0.09
Impedance (Ω)	440.52 ± 74.69ᵇ	511.76 ± 47.22ᵃ	442.42 ± 56.19ᵇ	0.006	0.14
B. Females
	Mixed training (n = 26)	Pilates (n = 25)	CrossFit (n = 25)
Variable	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	p	η²
Fat mass (kg)	15.18 ± 6.02ᵃᵇ	18.45 ± 6.51ᵃ	13.28 ± 4.19ᵇ	0.012	0.12
Lean mass (%)	77.01 ± 6.61ᵃ	72.03 ± 6.47ᵇ	78.27 ± 6.45ᵃ	0.009	0.13
Lean mass (kg)	49.18 ± 6.47	46.10 ± 4.42	47.99 ± 6.40	0.148	0.05
Phase angle (°)	6.68 ± 1.60	6.20 ± 0.96	7.17 ± 1.85	0.118	0.06
Impedance (Ω)	555.23 ± 82.78ᵇ	618.08 ± 77.23ᵃ	525.56 ± 71.45ᵇ	0.015	0.11

Notes: Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Fat mass (kg), total body fat mass; lean mass (%), percentage of fat-free mass; lean mass (kg), absolute fat-free mass; phase angle (°), bioelectrical impedance phase angle; impedance (Ω), bioelectrical impedance. η², eta-squared effect size. Group differences were assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) separately for men and women. Post-hoc comparisons were performed using Bonferroni correction. Different superscript letters denote statistically significant differences between groups (p < 0.05); shared letters indicate no significant difference.

Table 5. Adjusted fat mass percentage (%) according to exercise modality.

Exercise modality	Adjusted fat mass (%) Mean ± SE	95% CI for Mean
Mixed training	18.65 ± 0.86ᵇ	16.94 – 20.36
Pilates	24.89 ± 0.93ᵃ	23.05 – 26.72
CrossFit	18.67 ± 0.89ᵇ	16.90 – 20.44

Notes: Values are presented as estimated marginal means ± standard error (SE), adjusted for age and training age. 95% CI, 95% confidence interval. Pairwise comparisons were performed using Bonferroni correction. Different superscript letters (a, b) denote statistically significant differences between groups (p < 0.05); shared letters indicate no significant difference.

Table 6. Strength and flexibility characteristics by exercise modality and sex.

A. Males
	Mixed training (n = 26)	Pilates (n = 21)	CrossFit (n = 25)
Variable	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	p	η²
Muscular strength
Handgrip strength, left (kg)	54.17 ± 8.84ᵃ	45.48 ± 8.17ᵇ	47.02 ± 8.72ᵇ	0.006	0.14
Handgrip strength, right (kg)	55.35 ± 9.73ᵃ	47.38 ± 7.03ᵇ	49.55 ± 9.01ᵃᵇ	0.011	0.12
Dominant handgrip strength (kg)	56.28 ± 9.61ᵃ	48.41 ± 7.74ᵇ	49.88 ± 8.34ᵇ	0.005	0.14
Flexibility
Sit-and-reach (cm)	3.27 ± 9.87	0.00 ± 11.90	3.28 ± 9.08	0.420	0.03
Back scratch (cm)	10.12 ± 11.57	7.47 ± 12.47	4.68 ± 8.86	0.215	0.05
B. Females
	Mixed training (n = 26)	Pilates (n = 25)	CrossFit (n = 25)
Variable	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	p	η²
Muscular strength
Handgrip strength, left (kg)	31.24 ± 5.35	28.97 ± 5.67	30.76 ± 5.41	0.184	0.04
Handgrip strength, right (kg)	32.26 ± 5.50	30.90 ± 5.94	31.66 ± 5.13	0.412	0.02
Dominant handgrip strength (kg)	32.70 ± 6.06	31.68 ± 5.21	32.44 ± 5.42	0.797	0.01
Flexibility
Sit-and-reach (cm)	12.04 ± 8.06	8.20 ± 6.25	11.08 ± 6.04	0.071	0.07
Back scratch (cm)	0.92 ± 2.91	2.24 ± 5.65	0.72 ± 2.81	0.326	0.03

Notes: Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Handgrip strength was measured using dynamometry and expressed in kilograms (kg). Sit-and-reach and back scratch tests were used to assess flexibility (cm). η², eta-squared effect size. Group differences were assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) separately for men and women. Post-hoc comparisons were performed using Bonferroni correction. Different superscript letters denote statistically significant differences between groups (p < 0.05); shared letters indicate no significant difference.

Table 7. Adjusted dominant handgrip strength (kg) according to exercise modality.

Exercise modality	Adjusted dominant handgrip strength (kg) Mean ± SE	95% CI for Mean
Mixed training	44.32 ± 0.99ᵃ	42.36 – 46.27
Pilates	40.26 ± 1.06ᵇ	38.16 – 42.36
CrossFit	41.16 ± 1.01ᵃᵇ	39.16 – 43.17

Notes: Values are presented as estimated marginal means ± standard error (SE), adjusted for age and training age. 95% CI, 95% confidence interval. Pairwise comparisons were performed using Bonferroni correction. Different superscript letters denote statistically significant differences between groups (p < 0.05); shared letters indicate no significant difference.

Table 8. Mediterranean diet score by exercise modality and sex.

A. Males
	Mixed training (n = 26)	Pilates (n = 21)	CrossFit (n = 25)
Variable	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	p	η²
Mediterranean diet score (0–55)	29.9 ± 3.3^†	32.0 ± 3.7*	28.3 ± 4.6^†	0.008	0.13
B. Females
	Mixed training (n = 26)	Pilates (n = 25)	CrossFit (n = 25)
Variable	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	p	η²
Mediterranean diet score (0–55)	30.9 ± 4.8	32.5 ± 2.9	34.0 ± 5.6	0.053	0.08

Notes: Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Mediterranean diet score ranges from 0 to 55, with higher values indicating greater adherence to the Mediterranean diet. η², eta-squared effect size (small: 0.01, medium: 0.06, large: 0.14). Group differences were assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) separately for men and women. When significant effects were observed, Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc comparisons were applied. Different superscript symbols (*, †) denote statistically significant differences between groups (p < 0.05); shared symbols indicate no significant difference.

Table 9. Mediterranean diet score by exercise modality.

Exercise modality	Adjusted Mediterranean diet score Mean ± SE	95% CI for Mean
Mixed training	30.45 ± 0.82	28.82 – 32.08
Pilates	32.38 ± 0.87	30.65 – 34.11
CrossFit	31.12 ± 0.84	29.45 – 32.79

Notes: Values are presented as estimated marginal means ± standard error (SE), adjusted for age and training age. 95% CI, 95% confidence interval. Pairwise comparisons were performed using Bonferroni correction. No statistically significant differences were observed between exercise modalities (p > 0.05).

Table 10. Distribution of dietary supplement use according to sex.

Dietary supplement	Men, N (%)	Women, N (%)	p
Proteins	30 (41.7)	13 (17.1)	0.362
Creatine	16 (22.2)	7 (9.2)
Vitamins	13 (18.1)	9 (11.8)
Amino acids	4 (5.6)	5 (6.6)
Iron	3 (4.2)	4 (5.3)
Caffeine	3 (4.2)	3 (3.9)
Energy drinks	3 (4.2)	2 (2.6)
Carbohydrates	3 (4.2)	0 (0.0)
Isotonic drinks	2 (2.8)	3 (3.9)
Other minerals	1 (1.4)	0 (0.0)
Carnitine	1 (1.4)	0 (0.0)
Glutamine	0 (0.0)	1 (1.3)

Notes: Values are presented as number of participants (N) and percentage (%). Differences between men and women were examined using the chi-square test for independence. p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Table 11. Distribution of dietary supplement use according to reason for use.

Supplement	Performance N (%)	Appearance N (%)	Medical N (%)	p
Proteins	14 (38.9)	5 (31.3)	2 (18.2)	0.132
Creatine	8 (22.2)	3 (18.8)	1 (9.1)
Vitamins	7 (19.4)	5 (31.3)	0 (0.0)
Amino acids	5 (13.9)	3 (18.8)	0 (0.0)
Carbohydrates	2 (5.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Iron	2 (5.6)	1 (6.3)	2 (18.2)
Caffeine	2 (5.6)	1 (6.3)	0 (0.0)

Notes: Values are presented as number of participants (N) and percentage (%). Differences across reasons for supplement use were examined using the chi-square test for independence. p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Table 12. Distribution of dietary supplement use according to exercise modality.

Supplement	Mixed N (%)	Pilates N (%)	CrossFit N (%)	p
Proteins	12 (23.1)	12 (26.1)	19 (38.0)	0.070
Creatine	8 (15.4)	6 (13.0)	9 (18.0)
Vitamins	5 (9.6)	11 (23.9)	6 (12.0)
Iron	3 (5.8)	4 (8.7)	0 (0.0)
Amino acids	0 (0.0)	3 (6.5)	6 (12.0)

Notes: Values are presented as number of participants (N) and percentage (%). Differences in supplement use across exercise modalities were examined using the chi-square test for independence. p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.