We read the recent publication by Nathan, Davies & Swaine (2018) with great interest due to a mutual interest in the subject of Generalised Joint Hypermobility (GJH) and its influence on injuries within elite sport. The authors of this paper should be commended for undertaking a study with such good participant numbers over a range of sports. We believe that the findings of this study suggesting that GJH may be protective of joint ligament damage may be a very important initial paper leading to valuable further exploration within specific sports and specific joints. However despite this good work we would like to take the opportunity to raise a concern over one of their conclusions and how this may confuse readers of the article.
In the discussion section of this paper Nathan et al. (2018) suggest that the findings of this study may suggest that “regular stretching may increase flexibility, and this could subsequently reduce rates of injury in those that are less flexible.” We believe that this statement may lead to misunderstanding as the terms “flexibility” and “joint hypermobility” are two completely different entities.
GJH is a hereditary physiological entity whereby most synovial joints move beyond their normal limits (Pacey et al., 2010) and may, or may not be symptomatic. This entity is commonly classified by the use of the Beighton Scale, as in the Nathan et al. (2018) paper, whereby adult participants are deemed positive i...
We read the recent publication by Nathan, Davies & Swaine (2018) with great interest due to a mutual interest in the subject of Generalised Joint Hypermobility (GJH) and its influence on injuries within elite sport. The authors of this paper should be commended for undertaking a study with such good participant numbers over a range of sports. We believe that the findings of this study suggesting that GJH may be protective of joint ligament damage may be a very important initial paper leading to valuable further exploration within specific sports and specific joints. However despite this good work we would like to take the opportunity to raise a concern over one of their conclusions and how this may confuse readers of the article.
In the discussion section of this paper Nathan et al. (2018) suggest that the findings of this study may suggest that “regular stretching may increase flexibility, and this could subsequently reduce rates of injury in those that are less flexible.” We believe that this statement may lead to misunderstanding as the terms “flexibility” and “joint hypermobility” are two completely different entities.
GJH is a hereditary physiological entity whereby most synovial joints move beyond their normal limits (Pacey et al., 2010) and may, or may not be symptomatic. This entity is commonly classified by the use of the Beighton Scale, as in the Nathan et al. (2018) paper, whereby adult participants are deemed positive if they score five or more out of nine on the scale (Juul-Kristensen et al., 2017). The term flexibility however would commonly be recognised as the length of the muscle crossing the joint. It is suggested that within the paper the term “flexible joint” is overused, and the correct terminology should be “lax joint” as this would more closely match the fact that the authors are looking to further understand the influence of joint hypermobility.
We would suggest concluding that greater flexibility would decrease injury risk means the authors are misleading readers. It would be hypothesised that the decreased risk of injury within the ankle for example, may come from the ability of the athlete to enter ranges of inversion without stressing the passive ligamentous structures of the ankle which is thought to be in part due to the abnormal ratio of mobile type III collagen in hypermobile participants (Child, 1986). Flexibility of the muscles around the ankle joint is unlikely to provide a protective effect in this position. It is also worth noting that the terminology in the paper suggests that rates of joint sprains are lower in hypermobile participants highlights the fact that the authors were looking at ligamentous injury, and not muscular pathologies. It is unlikely that a stretching protocol would be able to influence the mobility of the passive ligamentous structures to such a degree that they would subsequently be classed as hypermobile, and therefore potentially at decreased risk of injury.
We would again like to highlight that this piece of work by Nathan et al. (2018) is a very important piece in the early stages are trying to better understand the influence of GJH upon injury risk. It is hoped that greater utilisation of the Lower Limb Assessment Score in sports where lower limb pathologies are most common may be able to assist in addressing the impact on practice suggestions from the authors.
References
Child, A.H. (1986). Joint hypermobility syndrome: Inherited disorder of collagen synthesis. The Journal of Rheumatology, 13(2), 239-243.
Juul-Kristensen, B., Schmedling, K., Rombaut, L., Lund, H. & Engelbert, R.H.H. (2017). Measurement properties of clinical assessment methods for classifying generalized joint hypermobility- A systematic review. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C (Seminars in Medical Genetics), 175C, 116-147.
Nathan, J.A., Davies, K. & Swaine, I. (2018). Hypermobility and sports injury. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 4.
Pacey, V., Nicholson, L.L., Adams, R.D., Munn, J. & Munns, C.F. (2010). Generalized Joint Hypermobility and Risk of Lower Limb Joint Injury During Sport: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 38(7), 1487-1497.
We read with great interest the systematic review by Joschtel et al.1 on the effects exercise training on physical and psychological health in children with pediatric respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia and cystic fibrosis (CF). Undoubtedly, the authors should be commended for their effort that they have put into this systematic review on an important research topic. However, we would like to take the opportunity to express some methodological concerns related to the CF studies included in this review.
Joschtel et al.1 included studies on children, adolescents and young adults aged between 4 and 21 years and excluded those with a study population mean age of 21 years. These contradictory criteria have led to a false inclusion of one study 2 that included patients aged 12-40 years (although with a mean (SD) age of 19.5 (6.4) and 19.4 (5.3) for the intervention and control groups, respectively). Other studies 3 4, in which the mean age of the participants is <21 years were not considered for this review. Specifically, 3 out of 4 groups from the Kriemler et al. study 3 would qualify to be included in this review. Joschtel et al.1 did not publish a review protocol and therefore pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria cannot be verified.
Joschtel et al.1 have conducted a meta-analysis on peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak), despite substantial heterogeneity of study characteristics (i.e., study...
We read with great interest the systematic review by Joschtel et al.1 on the effects exercise training on physical and psychological health in children with pediatric respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia and cystic fibrosis (CF). Undoubtedly, the authors should be commended for their effort that they have put into this systematic review on an important research topic. However, we would like to take the opportunity to express some methodological concerns related to the CF studies included in this review.
Joschtel et al.1 included studies on children, adolescents and young adults aged between 4 and 21 years and excluded those with a study population mean age of 21 years. These contradictory criteria have led to a false inclusion of one study 2 that included patients aged 12-40 years (although with a mean (SD) age of 19.5 (6.4) and 19.4 (5.3) for the intervention and control groups, respectively). Other studies 3 4, in which the mean age of the participants is <21 years were not considered for this review. Specifically, 3 out of 4 groups from the Kriemler et al. study 3 would qualify to be included in this review. Joschtel et al.1 did not publish a review protocol and therefore pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria cannot be verified.
Joschtel et al.1 have conducted a meta-analysis on peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak), despite substantial heterogeneity of study characteristics (i.e., study durations ranged from <3 weeks up to 3 years; comparison of supervised versus non-supervised studies using different training modalities in different settings etc). Excluding the Hebestreit et al.2 study, which does not meet the age inclusion criterion of 4 to 21 years, the effects on VO2peak became smaller [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.77 mL.kg-1.min-1 95% CI 0.25 to 1.29 versus 0.70 mL.kg-1.min-1 95% CI 0.12 to 1.29]. Further, it could be argued that the in-hospital trial by Selvadurai et al.5, in which children were treated for an acute infectious pulmonary exacerbation, is not comparable with the other studies in a meta-analysis, where children were treated as outpatients and those in unstable clinical condition were excluded. If this study is also excluded, the effects on VO2peak are no longer existent (SMD 0.77 mL.kg-1.min-1 95% CI 0.25 to 1.29 versus SMD 0.54 mL.kg-1.min-1 95% CI -0.04 to 1.12).
The authors1 also did a meta-analysis on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with asthma and CF and concluded that their analysis shows “a large significant effect size for HRQoL (SMD 1.36, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.30)” and that “exercise training significantly improves HRQoL in children with asthma and CF”. It is important to note that the meta-analysis for CF was based on two small-sized studies (n=22 and n=20) from the same research group 6 7, of which one study showed a statistically significant result in favor of exercise training. The authors of the original publications assessed HRQoL with the validated Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire (CFQ-R) - the younger children ( 11 years) were interviewed and children >12 years completed the questionnaire themselves. In both original studies, no statistically significant effects were reported for HRQoL after exercise training.6 7 The authors of the two studies reported pre- and post median (min, max) values for the exercise and control groups, respectively. We could not reproduce the HRQoL data in the forest plot (Figure 4) by Joschtel et al.1 following Cochrane handbook instructions (as the authors report using for their analysis) for the conversion of median (ranges) into mean (standard deviation) values.
Finally, systematic reviews aim to provide patients and healthcare professionals with the best available evidence on a specific topic and are used to guide healthcare decisions. However, conclusions drawn from systematic reviews (and meta-analysis) that are based on questionable methodology and non-reproducible data are unlikely to be helpful for either patients or healthcare professionals.
References
1. Joschtel B, Gomersall SR, Tweedy S, et al. Effects of exercise training on physical and psychosocial health in children with chronic respiratory disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2018;4(1):e000409.
2. Hebestreit H, Kieser S, Junge S, et al. Long-term effects of a partially supervised conditioning programme in cystic fibrosis. Eur Respir J 2010;35:578-83.
3. Kriemler S, Kieser S, Junge S, et al. Effect of supervised training on FEV1 in cystic fibrosis: A randomised controlled trial. J Cyst Fibros 2013;12:714-20.
4. Del Corral T, Cebria IIMA, Lopez-de-Uralde-Villanueva I, et al. Effectiveness of a Home-Based Active Video Game Programme in Young Cystic Fibrosis Patients. Respiration 2018;95:87-97.
5. Selvadurai HC, Blimkie CJ, Meyers N, et al. Randomized controlled study of in-hospital exercise training programs in children with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol 2002;33:194-200.
6. Santana Sosa E, Groeneveld IF, Gonzalez-Saiz L, et al. Intrahospital weight and aerobic training in children with cystic fibrosis: a randomized controlled trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012;44:2-11.
7. Santana-Sosa E, Gonzalez-Saiz L, Groeneveld IF, et al. Benefits of combining inspiratory muscle with 'whole muscle' training in children with cystic fibrosis: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:1513-7.
We read with great interest the recently published article by Tibana and de Sousa (1) titled “Are extreme conditioning programmes effective and safe? A narrative review of high intensity functional training methods research paradigms and findings.” We appreciate the opportunity to write this letter and hope to clarify some of the authors’ conclusions. Although the authors provide several examples of what they refer to as “extreme conditioning programs” we will focus mainly on the statements and evidence related to High Intensity Functional Training (HIFT), more commonly known as CrossFitTM training, as the authors’ review focuses primarily on this particular training program. We feel the authors have taken a biased position in describing this type of training and that their position is based on inaccurate and highly speculative interpretations of a fraction of the existing literature.
Research examining the acute and long-term responses to HIFT, as well as the incidence of injury, is quite limited. The observed responses predominantly describe changes from baseline and in the case of long-term adaptations, generally show a positive outcome. Further, the few studies that make comparisons to other exercise forms only show select differences. More importantly, by the authors’ own admission, research examining the risk of injury do not suggest HIFT/CrossFitTM to be different from other forms of recreational exercise. Yet, the authors descri...
We read with great interest the recently published article by Tibana and de Sousa (1) titled “Are extreme conditioning programmes effective and safe? A narrative review of high intensity functional training methods research paradigms and findings.” We appreciate the opportunity to write this letter and hope to clarify some of the authors’ conclusions. Although the authors provide several examples of what they refer to as “extreme conditioning programs” we will focus mainly on the statements and evidence related to High Intensity Functional Training (HIFT), more commonly known as CrossFitTM training, as the authors’ review focuses primarily on this particular training program. We feel the authors have taken a biased position in describing this type of training and that their position is based on inaccurate and highly speculative interpretations of a fraction of the existing literature.
Research examining the acute and long-term responses to HIFT, as well as the incidence of injury, is quite limited. The observed responses predominantly describe changes from baseline and in the case of long-term adaptations, generally show a positive outcome. Further, the few studies that make comparisons to other exercise forms only show select differences. More importantly, by the authors’ own admission, research examining the risk of injury do not suggest HIFT/CrossFitTM to be different from other forms of recreational exercise. Yet, the authors describe this risk as “alarming” and “becoming more prevalent.” We certainly agree that additional research is needed on this popular form of exercise, but at this time, and based on the available evidence, any definitive conclusions are premature at best.
From their terminology to generalized conclusions, it is clear that Tibana and de Sousa (1) have taken a position on HIFT/CrossFitTM that fits the definition of “extreme”. However, the Merriam-Webster dictionary describes extreme as something “existing in a very high degree,” or “exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected” or even “relating to, or being an activity or a form of a sport (such as skiing) that involves an unusually high degree of physical risk” (2). Yet, the scientific literature around HIFT/CrossFitTM does not support this notion or the use of “extreme” as an accurate descriptor. More importantly, the authors seem to have misrepresented some of the data. For example, alternating sets of push-ups and pull-ups on each minute for 48 minutes and totaling 400 push-ups and 200 pull-ups is equivalent to completing approximately ~16 push-ups and ~8 pull-ups per minute. Although this might appear to be a difficult task to some, it is not made clear by Tibana and de Sousa (or the original authors) how these tasks were performed (e.g., push-up starting position; assisted, butterfly, or kipping pull-ups) which would impact the severity of the exercise (3, 4). More importantly, the authors failed to mention that the individual played ice hockey on the following night and participated in another high-intensity workout the day after before seeing a medical professional. The authors also described additional protocols (e.g., 105 push-ups in 6 minutes [or 17 push-ups per minute]; 3 sets of chin-ups to failure over a 20-minute period) as being “extreme” when they were generally in line with the recommended prescription for endurance exercise (5). Another example of misrepresentation occurred with their description of the ‘Sissy Test’. This workout consists of 240 total repetitions evenly split between kettlebell swings and burpees, not 672 total repetitions. Likewise, the competition workout that included “unaccustomed exercise” (i.e., 60 GHD’s) is simply a version of the sit-up exercise performed with greater range of motion. In short, if we are to accurately describe HIFT and assess its merits and limitations, it is important to maintain perspective, describe protocols in detail, and avoid exaggerations.
Feito et al. (6) provided a working definition for HIFT: “a training style [or program] that incorporates a variety of functional movements, performed at high-intensity [relative to an individual’s ability], and designed to improve parameters of general physical fitness (e.g., cardiovascular endurance, strength, body composition, flexibility, etc.) and performance (e.g., agility, speed, power, strength, etc.).” Unlike “Extreme Conditioning Programs,” which would suggest that training is “abnormal” or “inherently dangerous,” this definition provides an objective description of workout modality and intensity, as well as its targeted outcomes. We acknowledge that this particular definition may not have been available at the time of the authors’ manuscript submission, but it is not drastically different than the definition provided by CrossFitTM itself: “constantly varied, high-intensity, functional movement” (7). Further, the term “HIFT” was first introduced in 2014, when Heinrich and colleagues (8) compared high-versus moderate-intensity training programs and has been used in more than a dozen other studies since. Tibani and de Sousa use ‘HIFT’ within their title, but the term is otherwise absent throughout their manuscript. We believe this omission, along with their exclusion of other works, represents a considerable amount of bias and limits the ability of the authors (and readers) to form accurate, objective conclusions on the impact of HIFT. Moreover, several studies have provided insight to the cardiovascular responses of HIFT training (9-11) and suggest these programs fit within the current exercise prescription recommendations provided by the American College of Sports Medicine (12).
Regarding injuries related to HIFT, the authors acknowledge that the incidence of injury (approximately 2 – 4 injuries per 1000 hours) is similar to that of weightlifting and other recreational activities and lower than several contact sports. Though limited by the cross-sectional nature and small sample sizes, these rates are consistent with what others have reported (13-19). As such, we agree with the authors that additional studies are needed to elaborate on the potential risk of this training modality, particularly among different population subgroups (i.e. youth, older adults, etc.). However, we do diverge from the authors’ presentation of this information throughout the manuscript. The authors introduce three areas of concern that are related to participant’s safety: “(1) use of fast movements with a high number of repetitions and insufficient rest intervals; (2) participants with a weak motor repertoire to perform complex movements and (3) a possible lack of educated, certified and experienced ECPs professionals, especially in the integration of all training methods.” Unfortunately, the authors do not provide evidence to validate these concerns.
Tibana and de Sousa cite a pair of studies that indicate a greater occurrence of overuse injuries (20) and a higher prevalence of shoulder injuries (14) following HIFT, but neither of these studies report the programming characteristics (i.e., training volume, relative intensity loads, or exercise frequency) employed by their participants. To make generalizable conclusions such as these, these authors (14, 20), as well as Tibani and de Sousa, must assume that higher training volumes, high training intensities, and complex movements are consistently employed across training. If we are to assume that HIFT/CrossFitTM is being appropriately employed, then this cannot be the case. By definition (6, 7), HIFT is constantly varied and scalable (i.e., intensity is relative to the individual), and would suggest that participants do not regularly employ any specific volume, intensity or modality with sufficient regularity to evoke overuse injuries. Nevertheless, without an accurate programming record, it is impossible to conclude that HIFT/CrossFitTM participants are regularly exposed to inappropriate complex movements that lead to injury. Likewise, it is not suitable to assume HIFT participants possess a “weak motor repertoire to perform complex movements” or that coaches lack education, certification, or experience. Although not provided by the authors, evidence refuting these claims have been provided by Tafuri et al. (21) and Waryasz et al (22), respectively.
Another important topic related to injury discussed by the authors is that of exertional rhabdomyolysis (ER). Regardless of the activity, developing ER is an extreme case that is detrimental to physical performance improvements and may lead to death. Nevertheless, the authors provide a very narrow view of how ER can develop and their conclusion that it is “becoming increasingly more prevalent” in HIFT is unsupported. The evidence provided within the manuscript consists of nine case studies that detail the occurrence of ER in 15 individuals. When put into perspective, the incidence of ER in relation to HIFT is quite small. Compared to the number of CrossFitTM affiliates existing worldwide (approximately 13,000), this would equate to 0.12% of participants if each location had a single member develop ER. Compared to the number of participants in the 2018 Open competition (N = 429,157 competitors), it would equate to less than 0.004%. A closer look at the literature related to ER demonstrates a similar number of case studies that support the development of ER in other activities (23-25), such as stationary cycling (26-28), ultimate frisbee (29) and even hiking (30).
In the most current and comprehensive study of HIFT related injuries, Feito et al. (19) demonstrated the overall low incidence of injuries associated with HIFT programs. According to that study, which included over 3,000 participants over a 4-year period, only 0.6% of participants reported the occurrence of ER (19). Even though the study by Feito and colleagues (19) is also limited in its ability to depict incidence of ER, it certainly provides a more appropriate measure of prevalence than any case study alone. Moreover, Knafl and colleagues (31) reported an increased number of ER cases being admitted to an emergency room in Brisbane, Australia and alluded to high-intensity workouts (e.g., CrossFitTM training) as a potential cause. However, this may have been merely speculation by the authors, as the underlying causes were divided into seven specific categories: 1) gym, 2) marathon/running, 3) manual labor, 4) military/police training, 5) team sports, 6) walking/heat, and 7) other (31). Therefore, we certainly agree that additional studies are warranted to accurately portray the incidence of ER, but we cannot yet conclude that HIFT presents any greater danger than other exercise forms.
In regards to the physiological responses to HIFT, Tibana and de Sousa refer to a number of studies documenting a larger inflammatory response compared to traditional exercise protocols. They summarize and interpret the literature as follows: “These results indicate that ECPs elicited a higher metabolic, cardiovascular, hormonal and inflammation response. Therefore, strength and conditioning professionals need to be aware of the level of stress imposed on individuals when performing metabolic workouts of ECPs… it is recommended that the incorporation of lower intensity sessions (e.g., through the rating of perceived exertion or HR) and/or resting days would help to minimize this exacerbated physiological response.” Although the authors partly summarize the more pronounced physiological responses, the recommendation to reduce intensity is not warranted, nor is the subjective description of the response as “exacerbated.” It is well documented that neuroendocrine and inflammatory responses play a critical role in exercise-induced signals for health-related benefits, including cardiovascular and metabolic adaptations (32, 33). It is further documented that these responses are directly correlated to the intensity of the exercise bout, and the degree of adaptations to exercise are, accordingly, primarily linked to the intensity of the exercise stimulus (34, 35). Therefore, we express the concern that the recommendation put forth by Tibana and de Sousa to reduce exercise intensity is tantamount to recommending a suboptimal exercise stimulus that would produce smaller magnitude health benefits compared to HIFT. Indeed, the authors failed to mention a very important recent study demonstrating that HIFT reduces fat mass, increases insulin sensitivity, increases fat oxidation, reduces blood concentrations of the pro-inflammatory cytokine resistin and increases levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine adiponectin in people with type 2 diabetes (36).
With respect to the chronic adaptations associated with HIFT, Tibana and de Sousa reach the conclusion that the “scientific literature showed few or no chronic effects on body composition and improvements in physical fitness and psychological parameters; however further studies are important.” For two reasons, we fail to understand how the authors reached this particular conclusion. First, the evidence provided by the authors seems to contradict their conclusions. Namely, the majority (i.e., 6 out of 11 studies) of these studies demonstrate positive effects of HIFT interventions on both body composition and fitness outcomes. Second, the authors fail to include two recent (but available prior to the date of publication) investigations that further demonstrate these positive effects (37, 38). Thus, we would like to offer an alternative interpretation of the authors’ presented evidence with respect to the chronic adaptations to HIFT. We would argue that not only does the majority of the evidence support the efficacy of HIFT for multiple domains associated with health and fitness, it also demonstrates efficacy across multiple population subgroups (e.g., teens, cancer survivors, people with Type 2 Diabetes, etc.). Further, the considerable heterogeneity across these studies with respect to intervention dosing (e.g., included interventions ranged from five weeks to six months in duration) suggests the likelihood of a dose-response relationship between HIFT and its desired outcomes. Current evidence suggests that at least 15 HIFT sessions, over a 3 – 5-week period, are needed to elicit changes in fitness outcomes, but the minimum effective dose specific to body composition changes is not well established and could potentially be significantly higher than it is for fitness-related outcomes.
Overall, we commend Tibana and de Sousa’s for their work and their attempt to review the current available literature related to HIFT. However, based on our interpretation of the evidence presented herein, we urge caution on the part of the BMJ readership in regards to its presentation and applying the recommendations put forth in their article.
REFERENCES
1. Tibana RA, Sousa NMF. Are extreme conditioning programmes effective and safe? A narrative review of high intensity functional training methods research paradigms and findings. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine. 2018;0:e000435.
2. "extreme". Merriam-Webster.com [Available from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extreme.
3. Dinunzio C, Van Scoy J, Porter N, Cordice D, McCulloch R, editors. Kinematic and muscle activation differences between a standard pull-up and a dynamic CrossFit "kipping" pull-up. International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings; 2017.
4. Ebben WP, Wurm B, VanderZanden TL, Spadavecchia ML, Durocher JJ, Bickham CT, et al. Kinetic analysis of several variations of push-ups. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2011;25(10):2891-4.
5. Sheppard JM, Triplett NT. Program Design for Resistance Training. In: Haff GG, Triplett NT, editors. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. 4th ed: Human Kinetics; 2015. p. 439 - 69.
6. Feito Y, Heinrich KM, Butcher SJ, Poston WSC. High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT): Definition and Research Implications for Improved Fitness. Sports (Basel). 2018;6(3).
7. CrossFit Training. The CrossFit Level 1 Training Guide: CrossFit, Inc.; 2018. Available from: http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_English_Level1_TrainingGuide.pdf.
8. Heinrich KM, Patel PM, O'Neal JL, Heinrich BS. High-intensity compared to moderate-intensity training for exercise initiation, enjoyment, adherence, and intentions: an intervention study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(14):789-95.
9. Butcher SJ, Neyedly TJ, Horvey KJ, Benko CR. Do physiological measures predict selected CrossFit benchmark performance? Open Access J Sports Med. 2015;6:241-7.
10. Sperlich B, Wallmann-Sperlich B, Zinner C, Von Stauffenberg V, Losert H, Holmberg HC. Functional High-Intensity Circuit Training Improves Body Composition, Peak Oxygen Uptake, Strength, and Alters Certain Dimensions of Quality of Life in Overweight Women. Front Physiol. 2017;8:172-81.
11. Kliszczewicz B, John QC, Daniel BL, Gretchen OD, Michael ER, Kyle TJ. Acute exercise and oxidative stress: CrossFit™ vs. treadmill bout. Journal of human kinetics. 2015;47(1):81-90.
12. American College of Sports Medicine. General Principles of Exercise Prescription. In: Riebe D, editor. ACSM's guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2017. p. 143-79.
13. Chachula LA, Cameron KL, Svoboda SJ. Association of Prior Injury With the Report of New Injuries Sustained During CrossFit Training. Athletic Training & Sports Health Care. 2016;8(1):28-34.
14. Hak PT, Hodzovic E, Hickey B. The nature and prevalence of injury during CrossFit training. J Strength Cond Res. 2013:Published Ahead of Print.
15. Mehrab M, de Vos R-J, Kraan GA, Mathijssen NM. Injury Incidence and Patterns Among Dutch CrossFit Athletes. Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. 2017;5(12):2325967117745263.
16. Montalvo AM, Shaefer H, Rodriguez B, Li T, Epnere K, Myer GD. Retrospective Injury Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Injury in CrossFit. J Sports Sci Med. 2017;16(1):53-9.
17. Moran S, Booker H, Staines J, Williams S. Rates and risk factors of injury in CrossFit: a prospective cohort study. Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness. 2017;57(9):1147-53.
18. Weisenthal BM, Beck CA, Maloney MD, DeHaven KE, Giordano BD. Injury Rate and Patterns Among CrossFit Athletes. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2014;2(4).
19. Feito Y, Burrows EK, Tabb LP. A 4-Year Analysis of the Incidence of Injuries Among CrossFit-Trained Participants. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018;6(10):2325967118803100.
20. Grier T, Canham-Chervak M, McNulty V, Jones BH. Extreme conditioning programs and injury risk in a US Army Brigade Combat Team. US Army Med Dep J. 2013(4):36-47.
21. Tafuri S, Notarnicola A, Monno A, Ferretti F, Moretti B. CrossFit athletes exhibit high symmetry of fundamental movement patterns. A cross-sectional study. Muscles, ligaments and tendons journal. 2016;6(1):157.
22. Waryasz GR, Suric V, Daniels AH, Gil JA, Eberson CP. CrossFit® instructor demographics and practice trends. Orthopedic reviews. 2016;8(4).
23. Gagliano M, Corona D, Giuffrida G, Giaquinta A, Tallarita T, Zerbo D, et al. Low-intensity body building exercise induced rhabdomyolysis: a case report. Cases J. 2009;2(1):7.
24. Galvez R, Stacy J, Howley A. Exertional rhabdomyolysis in seven division-1 swimming athletes. Clin J Sport Med. 2008;18(4):366-8.
25. Casares P, Marull J. Over a millon Creatine Kinase due to a heavy work-out: A case report. Cases J. 2008;1(1):173.
26. Thoenes M. Rhabdomyolysis: When Exercising Becomes a Risk. Journal of Pediatric Health Care. 2010;24(3):189-93.
27. Inklebarger J, Galanis N, Kirkos J, Kapetanos G. Exercise-induced rhabdomyolysis from stationary biking: a case report. Hippokratia. 2010;14(4):279.
28. Boni R, Rabitti P. Spinning-induced rhabdomyolysis: importance of MRI for patient’s outcome. A case report. Reumatismo. 2011;63(1):44-8.
29. Krivickas LS. Recurrent rhabdomyolysis in a collegiate athlete: a case report. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(3):407-10.
30. Clarkson P. Worst case scenarios: Exertional rhabdomyolysis and acute renal failure. Sports Science Exchange. 1993;4(42):1-6.
31. Knafl EG, Hughes JA, Dimeski G, Eley R. Rhabdomyolysis: Patterns, Circumstances, and Outcomes of Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department. The Ochsner Journal. 2018;18(3):215.
32. Jenkins NT, Martin JS, Laughlin MH, Padilla J. Exercise-induced Signals for Vascular Endothelial Adaptations: Implications for Cardiovascular Disease. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep. 2012;6(4):331-46.
33. Pedersen BK. Anti-inflammatory effects of exercise: role in diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Eur J Clin Invest. 2017;47(8):600-11.
34. MacInnis MJ, Gibala MJ. Physiological adaptations to interval training and the role of exercise intensity. J Physiol. 2017;595(9):2915-30.
35. Swain DP. Moderate or vigorous intensity exercise: which is better for improving aerobic fitness? Preventive cardiology. 2005;8(1):55-8.
36. Fealy CE, Nieuwoudt S, Foucher JA, Scelsi AR, Malin SK, Pagadala M, et al. Functional high intensity exercise training ameliorates insulin resistance and cardiometabolic risk factors in type 2 diabetes. Exp Physiol. 2018.
37. Crawford DA, Drake NB, Carper MJ, DeBlauw J, Heinrich KM. Are Changes in Physical Work Capacity Induced by High-Intensity Functional Training Related to Changes in Associated Physiologic Measures? Sports (Basel). 2018;6(2).
38. Feito Y, Hoffstetter W, Serafini P, Mangine G. Changes in body composition, bone metabolism, strength, and skill-specific performance resulting from 16-weeks of HIFT. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0198324.
Thank you to the authors for emphasizing this topic. Physical inactivity remains the big problem and major pandemic in the world. Besides Sweden, many developing and developed countries have this serious problems. Researchers may suggest that physical inactivity cost lead to bigger healthcare cost and economic burden in the future. Physical inactivity is contributed to about 6-10% of ischaemic heart disease, stroke, diabetes, breast and colon cancer(1). Global physical inactivity cost is estimated $67.5 billions in total which consist direct cost around $53.8 billions and indirect cost around $13.7 billions (2). As for Europe and North America, it remains higher cost than in Asia. In China, the total cost of physical inactivity is estimated total about $6.7 billions (3). As for Korea, cost as much as 83.6 million was contributed to physical inactivity(4). While in North America and Europe, it remains high each $28.9 billions and $15.5 billions in total cost (2).
It is much appreciated that the research filling the gap of data especially in Sweden. Other countries especially developing countries, should have the same idea about calculating the economic cost of physical inactivity. The current data in developing countries are inadequate, both direct and indirect cost which are very important. So that, the government can realize the important and dangerous effects of physical inactivity. Implementation should be underlined more on promotive and preventive action rath...
Thank you to the authors for emphasizing this topic. Physical inactivity remains the big problem and major pandemic in the world. Besides Sweden, many developing and developed countries have this serious problems. Researchers may suggest that physical inactivity cost lead to bigger healthcare cost and economic burden in the future. Physical inactivity is contributed to about 6-10% of ischaemic heart disease, stroke, diabetes, breast and colon cancer(1). Global physical inactivity cost is estimated $67.5 billions in total which consist direct cost around $53.8 billions and indirect cost around $13.7 billions (2). As for Europe and North America, it remains higher cost than in Asia. In China, the total cost of physical inactivity is estimated total about $6.7 billions (3). As for Korea, cost as much as 83.6 million was contributed to physical inactivity(4). While in North America and Europe, it remains high each $28.9 billions and $15.5 billions in total cost (2).
It is much appreciated that the research filling the gap of data especially in Sweden. Other countries especially developing countries, should have the same idea about calculating the economic cost of physical inactivity. The current data in developing countries are inadequate, both direct and indirect cost which are very important. So that, the government can realize the important and dangerous effects of physical inactivity. Implementation should be underlined more on promotive and preventive action rather than curative one. It can be emphasized in cost-effectiveness programme that can intervene the factors of physical inactivity. Another thing, the data are not updated yet. The current global and regional data in 2013 and need to be regularly updated (2).
Reference:
(1) Lee, I. M., Shiroma, E. J., Lobelo, F., Puska, P., Blair, S. N., & Katzmarzyk, P. T. (2012). Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet, 380(9838), 219-229. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61031-9
(2) Ding, D., Lawson, K. D., Kolbe-Alexander, T. L., Finkelstein, E. A., Katzmarzyk, P. T., van Mechelen, W., & Pratt, M. (2016). The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet, 388(10051), 1311-1324. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30383-x
(3) Zhang, J., & Chaaban, J. (2013). The economic cost of physical inactivity in China. Prev Med, 56(1), 75-78. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.11.010
(4) Min, J. Y., & Min, K. B. (2016). Excess Medical Care Costs Associated with Physical Inactivity among Korean Adults: Retrospective Cohort Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 13(1). doi:10.3390/ijerph13010136
To the Editor,
We read the recent publication by Nathan, Davies & Swaine (2018) with great interest due to a mutual interest in the subject of Generalised Joint Hypermobility (GJH) and its influence on injuries within elite sport. The authors of this paper should be commended for undertaking a study with such good participant numbers over a range of sports. We believe that the findings of this study suggesting that GJH may be protective of joint ligament damage may be a very important initial paper leading to valuable further exploration within specific sports and specific joints. However despite this good work we would like to take the opportunity to raise a concern over one of their conclusions and how this may confuse readers of the article.
In the discussion section of this paper Nathan et al. (2018) suggest that the findings of this study may suggest that “regular stretching may increase flexibility, and this could subsequently reduce rates of injury in those that are less flexible.” We believe that this statement may lead to misunderstanding as the terms “flexibility” and “joint hypermobility” are two completely different entities.
GJH is a hereditary physiological entity whereby most synovial joints move beyond their normal limits (Pacey et al., 2010) and may, or may not be symptomatic. This entity is commonly classified by the use of the Beighton Scale, as in the Nathan et al. (2018) paper, whereby adult participants are deemed positive i...
Show MoreTo the Editor,
We read with great interest the systematic review by Joschtel et al.1 on the effects exercise training on physical and psychological health in children with pediatric respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia and cystic fibrosis (CF). Undoubtedly, the authors should be commended for their effort that they have put into this systematic review on an important research topic. However, we would like to take the opportunity to express some methodological concerns related to the CF studies included in this review.
Joschtel et al.1 included studies on children, adolescents and young adults aged between 4 and 21 years and excluded those with a study population mean age of 21 years. These contradictory criteria have led to a false inclusion of one study 2 that included patients aged 12-40 years (although with a mean (SD) age of 19.5 (6.4) and 19.4 (5.3) for the intervention and control groups, respectively). Other studies 3 4, in which the mean age of the participants is <21 years were not considered for this review. Specifically, 3 out of 4 groups from the Kriemler et al. study 3 would qualify to be included in this review. Joschtel et al.1 did not publish a review protocol and therefore pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria cannot be verified.
Joschtel et al.1 have conducted a meta-analysis on peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak), despite substantial heterogeneity of study characteristics (i.e., study...
Show MoreDear Editor in Chief:
We read with great interest the recently published article by Tibana and de Sousa (1) titled “Are extreme conditioning programmes effective and safe? A narrative review of high intensity functional training methods research paradigms and findings.” We appreciate the opportunity to write this letter and hope to clarify some of the authors’ conclusions. Although the authors provide several examples of what they refer to as “extreme conditioning programs” we will focus mainly on the statements and evidence related to High Intensity Functional Training (HIFT), more commonly known as CrossFitTM training, as the authors’ review focuses primarily on this particular training program. We feel the authors have taken a biased position in describing this type of training and that their position is based on inaccurate and highly speculative interpretations of a fraction of the existing literature.
Research examining the acute and long-term responses to HIFT, as well as the incidence of injury, is quite limited. The observed responses predominantly describe changes from baseline and in the case of long-term adaptations, generally show a positive outcome. Further, the few studies that make comparisons to other exercise forms only show select differences. More importantly, by the authors’ own admission, research examining the risk of injury do not suggest HIFT/CrossFitTM to be different from other forms of recreational exercise. Yet, the authors descri...
Show MoreThank you to the authors for emphasizing this topic. Physical inactivity remains the big problem and major pandemic in the world. Besides Sweden, many developing and developed countries have this serious problems. Researchers may suggest that physical inactivity cost lead to bigger healthcare cost and economic burden in the future. Physical inactivity is contributed to about 6-10% of ischaemic heart disease, stroke, diabetes, breast and colon cancer(1). Global physical inactivity cost is estimated $67.5 billions in total which consist direct cost around $53.8 billions and indirect cost around $13.7 billions (2). As for Europe and North America, it remains higher cost than in Asia. In China, the total cost of physical inactivity is estimated total about $6.7 billions (3). As for Korea, cost as much as 83.6 million was contributed to physical inactivity(4). While in North America and Europe, it remains high each $28.9 billions and $15.5 billions in total cost (2).
It is much appreciated that the research filling the gap of data especially in Sweden. Other countries especially developing countries, should have the same idea about calculating the economic cost of physical inactivity. The current data in developing countries are inadequate, both direct and indirect cost which are very important. So that, the government can realize the important and dangerous effects of physical inactivity. Implementation should be underlined more on promotive and preventive action rath...
Show MorePages