Whether it’s the CrossFit Open or your next Hyrox, a no-rep wall ball can be the crucial difference between you achieving the time you want, or not. Skimping on squat depth not only causes a swirl of controversy online, but is considered cheating in fitness competitions – and for good reason. A researcher put his own no-rep wall balls to the test, and the findings revealed clear differences in both energy and time saved.
The results indicate that you could be saving 27% work when not hitting full depth, causing the researcher to compare no-rep wall balls to ‘biomechanical doping’.
The Study
Sport scientist and researcher Gommaar D’Hulst used motion sensors (one on the chest, another for additional tracking) to measure movement during wall balls.
He performed two conditions:
- Full reps (below parallel)
- No reps (above parallel)
With each tracked for vertical displacement, mechanical energy, and cycle time.
The sensors captured movement data, which was then used to calculate total mechanical work (potential and kinetic energy) for each rep type. This was compared across sets to quantify the difference in work, time, and energy cost between full and no reps.
The results were based on his own performance, but with precise biomechanical measurements.
The Results
D’Hulst says he found an ‘extreme difference’ between reps and no reps. He continued, ‘We had 27 to 26% less work for doing a no-rep versus a full rep. So that is very substantial. And not only less work, also importantly, the cycle time was 1.9 seconds in a full rep versus only 1.7 seconds in a no-rep. So when you take both into account, there is a massive advantage of doing no reps versus full reps.’
And that time adds up. D’Hulst explains that could be as much as 20 seconds more time to do 100 full-rep wall balls if you also calculate rest. ‘That is very substantial in my opinion,’ he says.
The researcher measures the effort in kilocalories. ‘The total work you’re going to have to do 100 no reps, so above parallel, is going to be 16.8 kilocals and it is going to be 23.01 kilocals for doing full reps.’
D’Hulst concludes: ‘You’re going to have to do way less work, way less calorie expenditure, and one rep takes a lot less time. So, it is double cheating in my opinion.’
This is important to take note of for anyone taking part in fitness competitions where wall balls are being judged. While it may be tempting during training to not hit full depth, we are not only cheating the reps, but cheating ourselves out of preparing fully for the events.
For fitness competitions, this highlights the importance of strict exercise standards. If one athlete fails to hit full depth while another does, it can lead to unfair results.
Kate is a fitness writer for Men’s Health UK where she contributes regular workouts, training tips and nutrition guides. She has a post graduate diploma in Sports Performance Nutrition and before joining Men’s Health she was a nutritionist, fitness writer and personal trainer with over 5k hours coaching on the gym floor. Kate has a keen interest in volunteering for animal shelters and when she isn’t lifting weights in her garden, she can be found walking her rescue dog.
