New Paradigm for Monitoring Load and Preventing Injuries in Running
New and highly relevant running physio paper by Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen's group https://lnkd.in/g_teETmr and another one out of the RUNSAFE Garmin project (https://lnkd.in/gzeKihwB). Underlying all this is a more nuanced yet more simple framework of understanding running injuries and training errors.
1. Approach training via a single session approach "avoid running a distance in their current session that exceeds 10% of the longest distance covered in the previous 30 days." This solidifies what we already know- frequency and gradual progression offers more resilience than volume and intensity (training spikes).
The authors are intelligent to hedge, however, saying that "progressions up to 10% are not necessarily safe either and carry a degree of risk. Although not statistically significant, a progression between 1% and 10% translated into an increased rate of 19% (95% CI: −10% to 57%, p=0.22)." This supports the load vs. capacity concept suggesting that there are non-modifiable sources of injuries (luck, genetics, allosteric stressors...etc).
2. The 10% rule and Gabbet et al.'s Acute/Chronic Workload ratio offer no predictive value for running injuries and should not be used as reference for future training capacity and injury prevention. This present study's n (5200), methodological soundness regarding injury exposure and hazard ratios offers a stronger counter argument to ACWR's week-to-week definition and methods.
In the context of performance, this study also supports one by Daniel Muniz-Pumares et al. From 16 weeks of data: 151,813 marathons completed by 119,452 runners.
https://lnkd.in/eDxrhjwH
A. There appears to be a relationship between a faster finish time and more training invested in more frequent, slower, and longer runs.
B. The authors say that a pyramid distribution had the strongest associations with the fastest times however there is no relationship for the dosage of polarization training (PI = log(Z1/Z2*Z3). Meaning it is unclear whether 80% vs. 20%, 90% vs. 10% was associated with faster times.
Begs the question...is this trend present simply because less speed work outs lead to less injury OR does the body optimize simply with less intensity?
Notes on methods- great adjustments to eliminate heart rate and use critical speed and model grade adjusted pace to distinguish between Z1-Z3
Hopefully this reduces the need of some wearables and costs for running training.