Background:Despite the increasing popularity of short duration, high-volume, and high-intensity exercise, called as CrossFit™ training in the whole word, there are few researches
about this subject. The modality draws attention because of variability of overhead movements and intensity of training that is consider as risk factors for sports injuries. The main purpose of the
present study was to describe the CrossFit™ athletes’ isokinetic strength, balance strength ratio and body composition. We also aimed to compare isokinetic strength profile of CrossFit™ athletes with
a control group.
Methods: The study was conducted among 32 male athletes for two different modalities, 21 from soccer (control group) and eleven from CrossFit™, between 18 and 40 years old from São
Paulo, Brazil. Biodex isokinetic dynamometer (Biodex Medical Systems Inc®, Shirley, New York, USA) was used to assess the concentric (conc) and eccentric (ecc) internal (IR) and external (ER) shoulder
rotators muscles peak torque (PT) and conventional (ERconc/ERcon) and functional (ERecc/IRconc) balance ratios in both sides. Fat mass and fat free mass of CrossFit™ athletes were measured by
dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, software version 12.3, Lunar DPX, Madison, WI).
Results: CrossFit™ athletes was: 31.9±5.9 years old, 85.2±9 kg, 1.76±0.06 m and control group was: 23.0±5.3 years old, 74.5±9.9 kg and 1.77±0.06 m. Conventional balance ratio for
CrossFit™ athletes was 62.0±6.9% (right side) and 66.0 ±9.5% (left side). Control group presented 78,9±21.7 % (right side) and 78.8±20.5 % (left side). There was a significant difference (p=0.01)
between groups in right side. The mean value for CrossFit™ athletes conventional balance ratio (right side) was out of the recommended value, which is 0.66 to 0.75. Functional balance ratio for
CrossFit™ group was 0,9±0.1 in the both sides, which is significant lower (p<0.01) than the values presented by control group 1.1±0.2 (right side) and 1.2±0.3 (left side). The mean value for CrossFit™
athletes functional balance ratio (right side) was out of the recommended value, higher than 1.0. CrossFit™ athletes presented 19.4±7.4% of body fat mass and 77.1±6.9% of body lean mass.
Conclusions: CrossFit™ trainers presented lower conventional and function balance ratios than the control group, and the mean values were out of the recommended literature values,
therefore they are at an increased risk of shoulder injuries. However, these are preliminary results and caution should be taken with this interpretation.