IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CHANGES IN TRAINING LOAD AND RUNNING-RELATED INJURIES? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
- PMID: 30534459
- PMCID: PMC6253751
IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CHANGES IN TRAINING LOAD AND RUNNING-RELATED INJURIES? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
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.
Keywords: Etiology; running-related injuries; training load.
Figures
References
-
- Hulme A Nielsen RO Timpka T Verhagen E Finch C. Risk and protective factors for middle- and long-distance running-related injury. Sports Med. 2017;47(5):869-886. - PubMed
-
- Soligard T Schwellnus M Alonso JM et al. How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(17):1030-1041. - PubMed
-
- Gabbett TJ Hulin BT Blanch P Whiteley R. High training workloads alone do not cause sports injuries: how you get there is the real issue. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(8):444-445. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials