Cargando…
CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: CrossFit is recognized as one of the fastest growing high-intensity functional training modes in the world. However, scientific data regarding the practice of CrossFit is sparse. Therefore, the objective of this study is to analyze the findings of scientific literature related to CrossFi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5826907/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29484512 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0124-5 |
_version_ | 1783302393873563648 |
---|---|
author | Claudino, João Gustavo Gabbett, Tim J. Bourgeois, Frank Souza, Helton de Sá Miranda, Rafael Chagas Mezêncio, Bruno Soncin, Rafael Cardoso Filho, Carlos Alberto Bottaro, Martim Hernandez, Arnaldo Jose Amadio, Alberto Carlos Serrão, Julio Cerca |
author_facet | Claudino, João Gustavo Gabbett, Tim J. Bourgeois, Frank Souza, Helton de Sá Miranda, Rafael Chagas Mezêncio, Bruno Soncin, Rafael Cardoso Filho, Carlos Alberto Bottaro, Martim Hernandez, Arnaldo Jose Amadio, Alberto Carlos Serrão, Julio Cerca |
author_sort | Claudino, João Gustavo |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: CrossFit is recognized as one of the fastest growing high-intensity functional training modes in the world. However, scientific data regarding the practice of CrossFit is sparse. Therefore, the objective of this study is to analyze the findings of scientific literature related to CrossFit via systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Systematic searches of the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme/MedLine, and SciELO online databases were conducted for articles reporting the effects of CrossFit training. The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The Oxford Levels of Evidence was used for all included articles, and only studies that investigated the effects of CrossFit as a training program were included in the meta-analysis. For the meta-analysis, effect sizes (ESs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Thirty-one articles were included in the systematic review and four were included in the meta-analysis. However, only two studies had a high level of evidence at low risk of bias. Scientific literature related to CrossFit has reported on body composition, psycho-physiological parameters, musculoskeletal injury risk, life and health aspects, and psycho-social behavior. In the meta-analysis, significant results were not found for any variables. CONCLUSIONS: The current scientific literature related to CrossFit has few studies with high level of evidence at low risk of bias. However, preliminary data has suggested that CrossFit practice is associated with higher levels of sense of community, satisfaction, and motivation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40798-018-0124-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5826907 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58269072018-03-01 CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Claudino, João Gustavo Gabbett, Tim J. Bourgeois, Frank Souza, Helton de Sá Miranda, Rafael Chagas Mezêncio, Bruno Soncin, Rafael Cardoso Filho, Carlos Alberto Bottaro, Martim Hernandez, Arnaldo Jose Amadio, Alberto Carlos Serrão, Julio Cerca Sports Med Open Systematic Review BACKGROUND: CrossFit is recognized as one of the fastest growing high-intensity functional training modes in the world. However, scientific data regarding the practice of CrossFit is sparse. Therefore, the objective of this study is to analyze the findings of scientific literature related to CrossFit via systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Systematic searches of the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme/MedLine, and SciELO online databases were conducted for articles reporting the effects of CrossFit training. The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The Oxford Levels of Evidence was used for all included articles, and only studies that investigated the effects of CrossFit as a training program were included in the meta-analysis. For the meta-analysis, effect sizes (ESs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Thirty-one articles were included in the systematic review and four were included in the meta-analysis. However, only two studies had a high level of evidence at low risk of bias. Scientific literature related to CrossFit has reported on body composition, psycho-physiological parameters, musculoskeletal injury risk, life and health aspects, and psycho-social behavior. In the meta-analysis, significant results were not found for any variables. CONCLUSIONS: The current scientific literature related to CrossFit has few studies with high level of evidence at low risk of bias. However, preliminary data has suggested that CrossFit practice is associated with higher levels of sense of community, satisfaction, and motivation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40798-018-0124-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2018-02-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5826907/ /pubmed/29484512 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0124-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Claudino, João Gustavo Gabbett, Tim J. Bourgeois, Frank Souza, Helton de Sá Miranda, Rafael Chagas Mezêncio, Bruno Soncin, Rafael Cardoso Filho, Carlos Alberto Bottaro, Martim Hernandez, Arnaldo Jose Amadio, Alberto Carlos Serrão, Julio Cerca CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title | CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_full | CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_short | CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
title_sort | crossfit overview: systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5826907/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29484512 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0124-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT claudinojoaogustavo crossfitoverviewsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT gabbetttimj crossfitoverviewsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT bourgeoisfrank crossfitoverviewsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT souzaheltondesa crossfitoverviewsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT mirandarafaelchagas crossfitoverviewsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT mezenciobruno crossfitoverviewsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT soncinrafael crossfitoverviewsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT cardosofilhocarlosalberto crossfitoverviewsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT bottaromartim crossfitoverviewsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hernandezarnaldojose crossfitoverviewsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT amadioalbertocarlos crossfitoverviewsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT serraojuliocerca crossfitoverviewsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |