Literature DB >> 32139368

Methods matter: exploring the 'too much, too soon' theory, part 1: causal questions in sports injury research.

Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen1,2, Michael Lejbach Bertelsen3, Merete Møller4, Adam Hulme5, Mohammad Ali Mansournia6,7, Marti Casals8,9, Erik Thorlund Parner10.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is widely accepted that athletes sustain sports injury if they train 'too much, too soon'. However, not all athletes are built the same; some can tolerate more training than others. It is for this reason that prescribing the same training programme to all athletes to reduce injury risk is not optimal from a coaching perspective. Rather, athletes require individualised training plans. In acknowledgement of athlete diversity, it is therefore essential to ask the right causal research question in studies examining sports injury aetiology.
PURPOSE: In this first part of a British Journal of Sports Medicine educational series, we present four different causal research questions related to the 'too much, too soon' theory and critically discuss their relevance to sports injury prevention. CONTENT: If it is true that there is no 'one size fits all' training programme, then we need to consider by how much training can vary depending on individual athlete characteristics. To provide an evidence-base for subgroup-specific recommendations, a stronger emphasis on the following questions is needed: (1) How much training is 'too much' before athletes with different characteristics sustain sports-related injury? and (2) Does the risk of sports injury differ among athletes with a certain characteristic (eg, high experience) compared with athletes with other characteristics (eg, low experience) depending on how much training they perform?
CONCLUSION: We recommend that sports injury researchers aiming to examine the 'too much, too soon' theory should carefully consider how they, assisted by coaches, athletes and clinicians, pose their causal research question. In the light of the limitations of population-based prevention that intends to provide all athletes with the same advice, we argue that a stronger emphasis on research questions targeting subgroups of athletes is needed. In doing so, researchers may assist athletes, clinicians and coaches to understand what training advice/programme works best, for whom and under what circumstances. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Keywords:  methodology; sport; statistics

Year:  2020        PMID: 32139368     DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100245

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Sports Med        ISSN: 0306-3674            Impact factor:   13.800


  5 in total

1.  The association between running injuries and training parameters: A systematic review.

Authors:  Anny Fredette; Jean-Sébastien Roy; Kadija Perreault; Frédérique Dupuis; Christopher Napier; Jean-Francois Esculier
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2021-09-03       Impact factor: 3.824

2.  Assessing the cumulative effect of long-term training load on the risk of injury in team sports.

Authors:  Lena Kristin Bache-Mathiesen; Thor Einar Andersen; Torstein Dalen-Lorentsen; Benjamin Clarsen; Morten Wang Fagerland
Journal:  BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med       Date:  2022-05-30

3.  A CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (the CHAMP statement): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Gary S Collins; Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen; Maryam Nazemipour; Nicholas P Jewell; Douglas G Altman; Michael J Campbell
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 18.473

4.  Educational online prevention programme (the SPRINT study) has no effect on the number of running-related injuries in recreational runners: a randomised-controlled trial.

Authors:  Kyra L A Cloosterman; Tryntsje Fokkema; Robert-Jan de Vos; Edwin Visser; Patrick Krastman; John IJzerman; Bart W Koes; Jan A N Verhaar; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra; Marienke van Middelkoop
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 18.473

5.  Nuisance or necessity? Why robust peer review is critical for medical science.

Authors:  Jon Patricios; Joanne Kemp; Jane S Thornton; Jonathan Drezner
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 13.800

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.