Purpose: To analyze the injury rates, patterns, and risk factors of functional training/CrossFit.
Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study.
Methods: Electronic questionnaires were distributed to 244 participants from 15 centers in the country. Descriptive data regarding the athletes, injury occurrence within the past 6 months, injury details, and risk factors were collected.
Results: Of the 244 athletes, 112 (46%) developed at least 1 new injury over the previous 6 months. Injury rates were significantly higher in athletes from nonaffiliate training gyms compared with CrossFit-affiliated gyms, in athletes with previous injuries, and in those who perceived themselves as having more than average fitness.
Conclusion: Coaches and athletes need to be more aware of risk factors for injury to enable safer and better training strategies.
METHOD: Two lifting loads were considered in this study: 1 kg and 5 kg. Each subject adjusted his frequency of lifting using a psychophysical approach. The subjects were instructed to perform combined MMH task as fast as they could over a period of 45 minutes without exhausting themselves or becoming overheated. The physiological response energy expenditure was recorded during the experimental sessions. The ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) for four body parts (forearms, upper arm, lower back and entire body) were recorded after the subjects had completed the instructed task.
RESULTS: The mean frequencies of the MMH task had been 6.8 and 5.5 cycles/minute for lifting load of 1 and 5 kg, respectively, while the mean energy expenditure values were 4.16 and 5.62 kcal/min for 1 and 5 kg load, respectively. These displayed a significant difference in the Maximum Acceptable Frequency of Lift (MAFL) between the two loads, energy expenditure and RPE (p < 0.05) whereby the subjects appeared to work harder physiologically for heavier load.
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that it is significant to assess physiological response and RPE in determining the maximum acceptable lifting frequency at varied levels of load weight. The findings retrieved in this study can aid in designing tasks that do not exceed the capacity of workers in order to minimise the risk of WRMSDs.
METHOD: This study utilized a quantitative, nonexperimental, cross-sectional research design. A total of 60 subjects were randomly selected after passing the study's sampling criteria. The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) was to used to determine common MSDs affecting the various regions in the body. The Demographic Pofile Sheet was provided to gather a subject's demographic characteristics.
RESULTS: Filipino migrant workers mostly complain of pain in the low back area (60%) and shoulder pain (60%), followed by pain in the upper back (48.3%) and neck pain (45%) in the last 12 months. Household workers accounting for 73.3% of the subjects commonly complain of pain in the hips/thighs (78.9%), while workers in the service industry commonly complain of knee pain (39.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: Results imply that Filipino migrant workers have a higher prevalence of shoulder and lower back pain in the last 12 months. Household workers are more susceptible to hip/thigh pain. Interventions focusing on ergonomics policy implementation, education on posture and lifting techniques and physical function is recommended. Further studies should consider the psychological and psychosocial aspects of migrant employment, which are known risk factors for MSDs.