Camma Damsted1, Simone Glad2, Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen1, Henrik Sørensen1, Laurent Malisoux3. 1. Section of Sport Science, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 2. University College Lillebaelt, Odense, Denmark. 3. Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Department of Population Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sudden changes (increases and decreases) in training load have been suggested to play a key role in the development of running-related injuries. However, the compiled evidence for an association between change in training load and running-related injury does not exist. PURPOSE: The purpose of the present systematic review was to compile the evidence from original articles examining the association between changes in training load and running-related injuries. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Four databases (Pubmed/Medline, SPORTDiscus, Embase, and Scopus) were systematically searched. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles independently. Articles were included if i) the study design was a randomized trial, a prospective cohort study, a cross-sectional study or a case-control study, ii) participants were runners between 18-65 years, and iii) specific information on changes in training load was provided. Methodological quality of included articles was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the PEDro rating scale. RESULTS: Four articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria of which three found an association between increases in training load and an increased risk of running-related injuries: This association was shown by an increased injury risk amongst runners: i) if they recently had performed one or more changes in either velocity and/or distance and/or frequency compared with the non-injured runners (p = 0.037), ii) increasing their average weekly running distance by more than 30% compared to an increase less than 10% (Hazard Ratio = 1.59 (95% Confidence Interval: 0.96; 2.66)), iii) increasing their total running distance significantly more the week before the injury origin compared with other weeks (mean difference: 86%; 95% Confidence Interval: 12%; 159%, p = 0.026). However, no difference was found between a 10% and a 24% average increase in weekly volume (HR = 0.8, 95% CI: 0.6; 1.3). CONCLUSION: Very limited evidence exists supporting that a sudden change in training load is associated with increased risk of running-related injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
BACKGROUND: Sudden changes (increases and decreases) in training load have been suggested to play a key role in the development of running-related injuries. However, the compiled evidence for an association between change in training load and running-related injury does not exist. PURPOSE: The purpose of the present systematic review was to compile the evidence from original articles examining the association between changes in training load and running-related injuries. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Four databases (Pubmed/Medline, SPORTDiscus, Embase, and Scopus) were systematically searched. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles independently. Articles were included if i) the study design was a randomized trial, a prospective cohort study, a cross-sectional study or a case-control study, ii) participants were runners between 18-65 years, and iii) specific information on changes in training load was provided. Methodological quality of included articles was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the PEDro rating scale. RESULTS: Four articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria of which three found an association between increases in training load and an increased risk of running-related injuries: This association was shown by an increased injury risk amongst runners: i) if they recently had performed one or more changes in either velocity and/or distance and/or frequency compared with the non-injured runners (p = 0.037), ii) increasing their average weekly running distance by more than 30% compared to an increase less than 10% (Hazard Ratio = 1.59 (95% Confidence Interval: 0.96; 2.66)), iii) increasing their total running distance significantly more the week before the injury origin compared with other weeks (mean difference: 86%; 95% Confidence Interval: 12%; 159%, p = 0.026). However, no difference was found between a 10% and a 24% average increase in weekly volume (HR = 0.8, 95% CI: 0.6; 1.3). CONCLUSION: Very limited evidence exists supporting that a sudden change in training load is associated with increased risk of running-related injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Entities:
Keywords:
Etiology; running-related injuries; training load
Authors: Andrea D Furlan; Antti Malmivaara; Roger Chou; Chris G Maher; Rick A Deyo; Mark Schoene; Gert Bronfort; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Bas Kluitenberg; Henk van der Worp; Bionka M A Huisstede; Fred Hartgens; Ron Diercks; Evert Verhagen; Marienke van Middelkoop Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Martin Schwellnus; Torbjørn Soligard; Juan-Manuel Alonso; Roald Bahr; Ben Clarsen; H Paul Dijkstra; Tim J Gabbett; Michael Gleeson; Martin Hägglund; Mark R Hutchinson; Christa Janse Van Rensburg; Romain Meeusen; John W Orchard; Babette M Pluim; Martin Raftery; Richard Budgett; Lars Engebretsen Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Matthew J Barenie; Jordan T Domenick; Jason E Bennett; George G Schweitzer; Paulina Shetty; Edward P Weiss Journal: Int J Exerc Sci Date: 2020-12-01
Authors: Sérgio Matos; Filipe Manuel Clemente; Rui Silva; Joel Pereira; José María Cancela Carral Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 3.390