Abstract:Background: CrossFit is a popular weightlifting sport, with participants who report significant improvements in physical health; however, others argue that CrossFit exposes participants to an increased risk and severity of injury. We address this through a retrospective cohort study. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the likelihood of self-reported injury and severity in CrossFit and traditional weightlifting in the previous 2 years. We hypothesized that CrossFit participants would have a higher 2-year likelihood of injury and medical care compared with a traditional weightlifting cohort. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Anonymous volunteers who participated regularly in CrossFit or traditional weightlifting routines completed a 15-question survey that queried workout routine, injury history, and medical care due to a weightlifting injury. Inclusion criteria included those older than 18 years who were active participants in CrossFit and weightlifting. Unpaired t-test analyses were conducted to compare means of continuous data between participants in CrossFit and traditional weightlifting. A multivariant logistic regression model was used to assess the association of training routine, sex, and age with those sustaining at least 1 injury within the past 2 years. Results: A total of 411 participants (122 CrossFit; 289 traditional weightlifting) completed the questionnaire. Those following a CrossFit routine were 1.30 times more likely to be injured (95% CI, 1.075-1.57; P = .0067) and 1.86 times more likely to seek medical attention (95% CI, 1.40-2.48; P < .0001). In a multivariant logistic regression analysis adjusting for sex and age, injury was 2.26 times more likely in the CrossFit group (95% CI, 1.42-3.62; P = .0010). In both groups, shoulder injuries were most common (46.41%), followed by lower back (38.28%) and hip injuries (9.09%). Conclusion: Athletes participating in CrossFit are more likely to be injured and to seek medical treatment compared with participants in traditional weightlifting. Despite these findings, the increased likelihood of injury may have less to do with the exercises involved with CrossFit and more related to the intensity with which the exercises are performed, and thus increased awareness is needed to prevent further injuries.

Exposure misclassification: an "immortal time" bias in observational studies of training load and injury

Time-to-event analysis for sports injury research part 1: time-varying exposures

Time-to-event analysis for sports injury research part 2: time-varying outcomes

Semiparametric Methods for Exposure Misclassification in Propensity Score-Based Time-to-Event Data Analysis

Training Load and Injury: Causal Pathways and Future Directions

Likelihood of Injury and Medical Care Between CrossFit and Traditional Weightlifting Participants

Estimating the marginal effect of a continuous exposure on an ordinal outcome using data subject to covariate‐driven treatment and visit processes

A Structural Description of Biases That Generate Immortal Time

Non-differential misclassification of outcome under (near)-perfect specificity: a simulation study

Limitations of Separating Athletes into High or Low-Risk Groups based on a Cut-Off. A Clinical Commentary

Despite association, the acute:chronic work load ratio does not predict non-contact injury in elite footballers

The acute:chronic workload ratio: challenges and prospects for improvement

Time-varying exposure history and subsequent health outcomes: a two-stage approach to identify critical windows

Study on the Impact of Exposure Misclassification on the Validity of a Study

The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring—a Practical Perspective and Call to Action

Exposure Misclassification and Threshold Concentrations in Time Series Analyses of Air Pollution Health Effects

On the Interplay Between Exposure Misclassification and Informative Cluster Size

Epidemiologic analyses with error-prone exposures: Review of current practice and recommendations

Differential recall bias in estimating treatment effects in observational studies

Estimation and Inference for Case-Control Studies with Multiple Non-Gold Standard Exposure Assessments: with an Occupational Health Application.