AMRAP
Aussi appelé : As Many Rounds As Possible, As Many Reps As Possible
A conditioning format where you complete as many full rounds (or reps) of a prescribed set of movements as possible within a fixed time cap. AMRAP flips the usual work-then-rest structure: instead of a target number of rounds at an unknown pace, you fix the time and let the round count be the outcome — the score is the honest measure of how much work you produced.
Formule
AMRAP score = completed full rounds + (partial-round reps into the next round, often written as a fraction or a plus-count) [time cap fixed in advance, e.g. 'AMRAP 12']Exemple
AMRAP 10: 10 push presses, 12 ring rows, 15 banded tricep pushdowns. An athlete completes 3 full rounds plus 8 push presses into round 4 before the clock stops. Score: '3 rounds + 8 reps'. A second athlete pacing more aggressively completes 4 full rounds even. Both sessions ran exactly 10 minutes, but the round count is the direct comparison point between them.
Comment Afitpilot l'utilise
Afitpilot logs AMRAP scores as completed rounds (plus any partial-round reps) against the block's prescribed movements, feeding both the block's actual-vs-prescribed comparison and the session's overall volume/tonnage where the movements carry a known weight. Because there's no deterministic target rep count for an AMRAP block (unlike straight sets), it's excluded from planned volume/tonnage totals the same way EMOM and 'to failure' work is — the round count itself is the honest scorecard here, not a reps number.
AMRAP in practice
| Qui / Contexte | Valeur | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Typical CrossFit AMRAP | 8-20 minute time caps | Shorter caps favor higher-skill/higher-load movements; longer caps favor sustainable pacing |
| Scoring convention | Rounds + reps (e.g. '4 rounds + 8 reps') | Higher total reps at the cap wins, not just completed rounds |
Limites connues
- •Pacing strategy meaningfully changes the score independent of fitness — an athlete who goes out too hard can blow up and finish with fewer total rounds than a more even pacing strategy would have produced, especially past the 8-10 minute mark.
- •Partial-round scoring conventions vary (some log exact reps into the next round, others round to the nearest completed movement), which makes cross-platform or cross-coach score comparisons slightly apples-to-oranges.
- •AMRAP doesn't cleanly separate strength stimulus from conditioning stimulus when movements include loaded lifts — a heavy set worked into an AMRAP round carries both a metabolic and a mechanical cost that a single round-count score doesn't distinguish.
Science Context
AMRAP-style fixed-time, maximum-output testing has roots in general physical-preparedness and CrossFit-style conditioning programming from the mid-2000s, though the underlying test structure (fixed duration, count the output) is much older in exercise testing generally — comparable in spirit to the Cooper 12-minute run test (Cooper, 1968), which uses the same fixed-time/maximize-output logic for aerobic capacity. The appeal for self-coached athletes is practical rather than physiological: an AMRAP produces a single, unambiguous score (rounds + reps) without requiring pace prediction or load selection in advance, at the cost of not cleanly isolating which energy system or movement pattern limited the score on any given attempt.