EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This study was based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes) statement guidelines for a systematic review of the academic databases Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, EBSCOhost (SportDiscus), and Google Scholar. The PEDro scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included publications, which ranged from moderate to high quality. The systematic review protocol was registered on inplasy.com (INPLASY202380049).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Out of 249 studies identified, 93 articles were evaluated as eligible, and after the screening, 18 studies were finally included in this systematic review. Meta-analysis results showed a significant enhancement on vertical jump height in the BFRT group compared to the control group (SMD=1.39, 95% CI=0.30-2.49, P=0.01). BFRT was able to significantly increase maximal oxygen uptake (SMD=1.65, 95% CI=0.56-2.74, P<0.01). While no significant improvement in sprint time was observed (SMD= -0.18, 95% CI=-1.18-0.82, P=0.115).
CONCLUSIONS: The finding suggests that BFRT is beneficial to athletes as this training method can be effective in enhancing physical and technical performance in athletes. Nevertheless, further analysis needs to be conducted to fully determine the effectiveness of the moderators of the intervention on sports performance.
MAIN BODY: A total of 42 studies were included in the analysis, with a total number of 41,054 individuals (of which 10,442 were in the athlete group and 30,612 in the control group). For each study included in the analysis, the agreement of genotype frequencies with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium was tested, as well as the presence of an excess or deficit of heterozygotes. Prediction intervals for the overall effect size (OR-odds ratio) was estimated. Both in the subgroups of athletes and controls, a significant difference FIS from zero was found, suggesting inbreeding or outbreeding, as well as a very wide 95% CI for FIS. A meta-analysis was conducted for dominant, codominant, and recessive inheritance models. The obtained ORs and their 95% CIs were in the range of almost negligible values or have very wide CIs. The evaluation for the recessive model showed 95% PI for the OR lies between 0.74 to 1.92. Statistically, it does not differ from zero, which means that in some 95% of studies comparable to those in the analysis, the true effect size will fall in this interval.
CONCLUSION: Despite numerous attempts to identify genetic variants associated with success in elite sports, progress in this direction remains insignificant. Thus, no sports or sports roles were found for which the C > T variant of the ACTN3 gene would be a reliable prognostic marker for assessing an individual predisposition to achieve high sports performance. The results of the present meta-analysis support the conclusion that neutral gene polymorphism-from evolutionary or adaptive point of view-is not a trait that can be selected or used as a predictive tool in sports.
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.