Characterizing Injuries and Participation in High Intensity Functional Training

Abstract

Limited epidemiological data related to injury and high-intensity functional training (HIFT) suggest relatively low injury risk compared to other exercises (e.g., running). PURPOSE: This qualitative study characterized injury related experiences for HIFT participants. METHODS: 60-min key informant interviews (KI) with six HIFT coaches (67% male, age = 39 ± 8y, 4 ± 3y experience), six 90-min focus groups (FG) with 48 HIFT exercisers (56% male, age = 34 ± 9y, 40% > 1y experience), and 15-min interviews (IN) with 10 HIFT exercisers (50% male, age = 43 ± 15y, 50% > 1y experience) were used. Only FG were asked “What injuries have you experienced as a result of participating in HIFT?” Data were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Member checking was used for interviews. Data were thematically analyzed to identify statements related to injuries, hurt, pain, soreness, or safety for all participants. Data were open-coded and discussed for consensus by two researchers. RESULTS: Key themes included participants reporting mostly minor “HIFT injuries” (KI = 33%, FG = 100%, IN = 20%). Participants also reported having “injuries from other types of exercises/sports” (KI = 33%, FG = 67%, IN = 10%) “High intensity workouts” influenced when participants pushed too hard and became injured or lessened intensity to avoid injury (KI = 50%, FG = 67%, IN = 20%). Accordingly, participants reported feeling pain and soreness “during workouts” (KI = 33%, FG = 83%, IN = 20%), although some liked this. Some “started HIFT because of injury” (KI = 33%, FG = 67%, IN = 10%) and utilized HIFT for “therapy/prevention of other health problems” (KI = 17%, FG = 50%, IN = 67%) while others “stopped HIFT due to injury” (KI = 33%, FG = 50%). Even though “perceived injury risk” was a participation barrier (FG = 67%, IN = 10%), “scaling or modifying” workouts helped avoid injuries or continue HIFT when injured (KI = 50%, FG = 17%, IN = 10%). “Good coaching” (KI = 50%, FG = 50%), “improved fitness” (KI = 17%, FG = 33%, IN = 30%), and “knowledge, technique, and goals” (KI = 33%, FG = 83%, IN = 10%) were injury prevention tools. CONCLUSIONS: Data illuminate the range of participants’ experiences with HIFT regarding injury, including how to modify workouts, prevent/recover from injuries, and improve health. Prospective studies should be designed to prevent and/or better track HIFT injuries.