OBJECTIVE: To compare the occurrence of preseason football conditioning injuries in traditional and crossover conditioning programs over five preseasons. DESIGN AND SETTING: The turf group performed all preseason conditioning by running or sprinting on artificial turf, and the turf and swim group alternated all preseason conditioning by running and sprinting on artificial turf or kickboard swimming. SUBJECTS: Subjects were 519 NCAA Division III physically active football players. MEASUREMENTS: Previous conditioning injuries, preseason conditioning injuries, missed practices, and missed conditioning sessions were recorded. Exact numbers and areas of injury for each year and each group were tabulated. A chi-square statistic compared the two groups and a logistic regression model was used to estimate the risk of becoming injured and the types of conditioning injuries experienced in the two groups. RESULTS: Prevalence of injury was significantly different in the two groups. In the turf group, 35% of subjects developed a conditioning injury; in the turf and swim group, 13% developed a conditioning injury (x(2)= 33.16, p <.0001). No significant difference in missed practices or missed conditioning sessions was found. CONCLUSIONS: The turf and swim group experienced significantly fewer football preseason conditioning injuries than the turf group. The crossover effects of a running and swimming program may decrease the number of overuse injuries associated with repetitive running on artificial turf in traditional preseason conditioning programs.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the occurrence of preseason football conditioning injuries in traditional and crossover conditioning programs over five preseasons. DESIGN AND SETTING: The turf group performed all preseason conditioning by running or sprinting on artificial turf, and the turf and swim group alternated all preseason conditioning by running and sprinting on artificial turf or kickboard swimming. SUBJECTS: Subjects were 519 NCAA Division III physically active football players. MEASUREMENTS: Previous conditioning injuries, preseason conditioning injuries, missed practices, and missed conditioning sessions were recorded. Exact numbers and areas of injury for each year and each group were tabulated. A chi-square statistic compared the two groups and a logistic regression model was used to estimate the risk of becoming injured and the types of conditioning injuries experienced in the two groups. RESULTS: Prevalence of injury was significantly different in the two groups. In the turf group, 35% of subjects developed a conditioning injury; in the turf and swim group, 13% developed a conditioning injury (x(2)= 33.16, p <.0001). No significant difference in missed practices or missed conditioning sessions was found. CONCLUSIONS: The turf and swim group experienced significantly fewer football preseason conditioning injuries than the turf group. The crossover effects of a running and swimming program may decrease the number of overuse injuries associated with repetitive running on artificial turf in traditional preseason conditioning programs.