Running injuries in runners enrolled in different training interventions

NewsBot · Aug 4, 2016

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
Running injuries in novice runners enrolled in different training interventions: a pilot randomized controlled trial
J. Baltich, C. A. Emery, J. L. Whittaker, B. M. Nigg
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports; early view

The purpose of this trial was to evaluate injury risk in novice runners participating in different strength training interventions. This was a pilot randomized controlled trial. Novice runners (n = 129, 18?60 years old, <2 years recent running experience) were block randomized to one of three groups: a resistance strength training group, a functional strength training group, or a stretching control group. The primary outcome was running related injury. The number of participants with complaints and the injury rate (IR = no. injuries/1000 running hours) were quantified for each intervention group. For the first 8 weeks, participants were instructed to complete their training intervention three to five times a week. The remaining 4 months was a maintenance period. Trial registration: NCT01900262. A total of 52 of the 129 (40%) novice runners experienced at least one running related injury: 21 in the functional strength training program, 16 in the resistance strength training program and 15 in the control stretching program. Injury rates did not differ between study groups [IR = 32.9 (95% CI 20.8, 49.3) in the functional group, IR = 31.6 (95% CI 18.4, 50.5) in the resistance group, and IR = 26.7 (95% CI 15.2, 43.2)] in the control group. Although this was a pilot assessment, home-based strength training did not appear to alter injury rates compared to stretching. Future studies should consider methods to minimize participant drop out to allow for the assessment of injury risk. Injury risk in novice runners based on this pilot study will inform the development of future larger studies investigating the impact of injury prevention interventions.
Click to expand...

Craig Payne · Aug 4, 2016

I blogged about this study last yr from the ISB mtg:

Baltich et al reported on the The influence of ankle strength exercise training on running injury risk factors in which 129 runners were randomized to one of 3 groups: functional strengthening (lunges, squats, hopping, jumps); resistance strengthening (TheraBand) and a control group (stretching). The study was powered to look at changes in muscle strength (which they found) and was not powered to look at injury rates, which they did anyway and what they found was interesting:
– the functional group had 62 injuries/1000hrs running
– the resistance group had 41.7 injuries/1000hrs running
– the Stretching group had 58.7 injuries/1000hrs running
Not all the running injuries were “time loss injuries”; there were 4 that were and all 4 were in the functional training group and all those 4 were in the foot.
Click to expand...

http://www.runresearchjunkie.com/relevant-gems-from-the-2015-footwear-biomechanics-symposium/

NewsBot · Feb 2, 2017

THE IMPACT OF RUNNING LEVEL ON THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RUNNING DISTANCE AND INJURY RISK
Camma Damsted, Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen, Laurent Malisoux
Br J Sports Med 2017;51:310 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-097372.68

Background Running distance has previously been identified as a risk factor for running-related injury. It is likely that the runner's fitness level may also influence injury risk.

Objective To investigate if running level modifies the association between cumulated running distance over the previous week and injury risk.

Design Prospective cohort study with a 6-month follow-up.

Setting Recreational runners.

Participants Injury free recreational runners (n=372) were required to report all running activity as well as any injury using a dedicated Internet platform.

Assessment of Risk Factors The main exposure was cumulated running distance over the week prior to a given session (time-dependent exposure) and was dichotomized into low<20 km (reference group), and high≥20 km. Running level was defined as the average running speed during follow-up and was dichotomized into fast runners≥10 km/h and slow runners<10 km/h.

Main Outcome Measurements First running-related injury based on a 1-day time loss definition.

Results In the crude analysis, a lower injury rate was observed when the runners cumulated a high running distance prior to a given session (hazard ratio (HR)=0.43; 95% confidence interval (95% CI)=0.28–0.66). After stratification according to running level, a significant lower injury rate was found for slow runners (HR=0.32; 95% CI=0.18–0.60) when they cumulated a high running distance prior to a given session, while the injury rate did not differ between exposure states for fast runners (HR=0.78; 95% CI=0.37–1.64). Based on the hazard ratios from the stratified analysis, it appears that low running level modifies the association between cumulated running distance over the previous week and injury risk with a factor of 2.43.

Conclusions Running level should be taken into account when analysing the association between training-related risk factor and injury risk.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Feb 2, 2017

TRAINING TRENDS AND INJURY INCIDENCES AMONG IRISH DISTANCE RUNNERS
Colin Griffin et al
Br J Sports Med 2017;51:324-325 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-097372.105

Background To date, research investigating the training habits and practice of resistance training among elite distance runners as well as training factors relating to injury, has been sparse.

Objective To investigate the typical training of Irish distance runners and self-reported injury incidences over a previous two year period.

Design Mixed methods.

Setting Irish elite distance runners completed a questionnaire using Google Forms.

Participants Opportunistic sampling (n=109, n=78 male and n=31 female respondents) from age 18+ who compete from 800 m up to the Marathon, from national competitive to international level of performance.

Interventions The independent variables included demographic profile, typical weekly running training volume and practice of resistance training.

Main Outcome Measurements A multi-stage data analysis process using SPSS, data coding and Chi square analysis. A p-value of <0.05 was used to determine statistical significance between variables and sub-groups.

Results More than half the respondents (53.2%) run less than 60 miles per week and 11% run more than 80 miles per week. Eighty-eight per cent of athletes include resistance training. Weight training (36.5% complete two sessions per week), plyometric training (35.4% complete one session per week), core training (47.9% complete two sessions per week) and hill training (60.4% complete one session per week) were the most common resistance training methods employed. In the previous two years, 60.5% of athletes experienced a running-related injury. The knee (24.2%) was the most common injury site and 25.8% of athletes experienced a bone stress injury.

Conclusions Irish distance runners train at lower weekly running volumes than previously reported for world-class elite athletes, but include resistance training methods that are typically employed to improve running economy and performance. No significant relationships were found between training trends, demographic profile and injury incidences. Future prospective studies should examine the periodisation of training loads and resistance training across a season.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Nov 17, 2019

In training for a marathon: Runners and running-related injury prevention
H.Hofstede et al
Physical Therapy in Sport; 15 November 2019

Highlights
•When preparing for a half or full marathon runners use various preventive measures.
•51.6% of the runners reported at least one RRI in the 12-months prior to this study (history of RRIs).
•71/161 (44%) of the runners had ≥ 1 moderate or severe RRI during the preparation period (substantially injured runners).
•60% of all runners used at least one additional preventive measure during the study period.
•Subgroups of runners use various preventive measures.
•Substantially injured runners with a history of RRI more often used brace, bandages or kinesiotape and more often asked for shoe-advice when buying running shoes.
Click to expand...

Objective
To investigate which preventive measures runners use when preparing for a half- or full-marathon and whether the use of these measures at baseline and during the preparation-period differs between runners who sustained no/non-substantial running-related injuries (NSIRs) or substantial running-related injuries (SIRs).

Design
Prospective cohort study.

Setting
16-week period before the XXXXX-marathon.

Participants
Runners who subscribed for the half- or full-marathon.

Main outcome measures
The occurrence of RRIs was registered every 2-weeks, using the Dutch version of the Oslo Sport Trauma Research Center (OSTRC) questionnaire on Health Problems. The OSTRC was used to differentiate between runners with SIRs (question 2/3 score>12 and NSIRs (question 2/3 score<13). The use of different preventive measures, was registered every 4-weeks.

Results
51.6% of the runners reported at least one RRI in the 12-months prior to this study (history of RRIs). The SIRs with a history of RRIs more often asked for running shoe advice than NSIRs with a history of RRIs(67.9%vs43.4%, P < 0.05); 18.9% of the SIRs with a history of RRIs used supportive materials for knee and/or ankle versus 0% of NSIRs with a history of RRIs (P < 0.05).

Conclusion
SIRs with a history of RRIs might be using their preventive measures for symptom reduction or secondary prevention.
Click to expand...

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Craig Payne Moderator

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Lower limb alignment characteristics are not associated with running injuries in runners

Prospective comparison of running injuries between shod and barefoot runners

Treating running injuries in adolescents

Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults

Evolution of distance running shoes: performance, injuries, and rules

Foot Core Training to Prevent Running-Related Injuries

Are Nike promising a 52% reduction in running injuries

Share This Page