Dataset Information

Run Clever - No difference in risk of injury when comparing progression in running volume and running intensity in recreational runners: A randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: Background/aim:The Run Clever trial investigated if there was a difference in injury occurrence across two running schedules, focusing on progression in volume of running intensity (Sch-I) or in total running volume (Sch-V). It was hypothesised that 15% more runners with a focus on progression in volume of running intensity would sustain an injury compared with runners with a focus on progression in total running volume. Methods:Healthy recreational runners were included and randomly allocated to Sch-I or Sch-V. In the first eight weeks of the 24-week follow-up, all participants (n=839) followed the same running schedule (preconditioning). Participants (n=447) not censored during the first eight?weeks entered the 16-week training period with a focus on either progression in intensity (Sch-I) or volume (Sch-V). A global positioning system collected all data on running. During running, all participants received real-time, individualised feedback on running intensity and running volume. The primary outcome was running-related injury (RRI). Results:After preconditioning a total of 80 runners sustained an RRI (Sch-I n=36/Sch-V n=44). The cumulative incidence proportion (CIP) in Sch-V (reference group) were CIP2 weeks 4.6%; CIP4 weeks 8.2%; CIP8 weeks 13.2%; CIP16 weeks 28.0%. The risk differences (RD) and 95%?CI between the two schedules were RD2 weeks=2.9%(-5.7% to 11.6%); RD4 weeks=1.8%(-9.1% to 12.8%); RD8 weeks=-4.7%(-17.5% to 8.1%); RD16 weeks=-14.0% (-36.9% to 8.9%). Conclusion:A similar proportion of runners sustained injuries in the two running schedules.

SUBMITTER: Ramskov D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5841490 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Run Clever - No difference in risk of injury when comparing progression in running volume and running intensity in recreational runners: A randomised trial.

Ramskov Daniel D Rasmussen Sten S Sørensen Henrik H Parner Erik Thorlund ET Lind Martin M Nielsen Rasmus Oestergaard RO

BMJ open sport & exercise medicine 20180207 1

<h4>Background/aim</h4>The Run Clever trial investigated if there was a difference in injury occurrence across two running schedules, focusing on progression in volume of running intensity (Sch-I) or in total running volume (Sch-V). It was hypothesised that 15% more runners with a focus on progression in volume of running intensity would sustain an injury compared with runners with a focus on progression in total running volume.<h4>Methods</h4>Healthy recreational runners were included and rando ...[more]

PMID: 29527322

Similar Datasets

Project description:Injury incidence and prevalence in running populations have been investigated and documented in several studies. However, knowledge about injury etiology and prevention is needed. Training errors in running are modifiable risk factors and people engaged in recreational running need evidence-based running schedules to minimize the risk of injury. The existing literature on running volume and running intensity and the development of injuries show conflicting results. This may be related to previously applied study designs, methods used to quantify the performed running and the statistical analysis of the collected data. The aim of the Run Clever trial is to investigate if a focus on running intensity compared with a focus on running volume in a running schedule influences the overall injury risk differently.The Run Clever trial is a randomized trial with a 24-week follow-up. Healthy recreational runners between 18 and 65 years and with an average of 1-3 running sessions per week the past 6 months are included. Participants are randomized into two intervention groups: Running schedule-I and Schedule-V. Schedule-I emphasizes a progression in running intensity by increasing the weekly volume of running at a hard pace, while Schedule-V emphasizes a progression in running volume, by increasing the weekly overall volume. Data on the running performed is collected by GPS. Participants who sustain running-related injuries are diagnosed by a diagnostic team of physiotherapists using standardized diagnostic criteria. The members of the diagnostic team are blinded. The study design, procedures and informed consent were approved by the Ethics Committee Northern Denmark Region (N-20140069).The Run Clever trial will provide insight into possible differences in injury risk between running schedules emphasizing either running intensity or running volume. The risk of sustaining volume- and intensity-related injuries will be compared in the two intervention groups using a competing risks approach. The trial will hopefully result in a better understanding of the relationship between the running performed and possible differences in running-related injury risk and the injuries developed.Clinical Trials NCT02349373 - January 23, 2015.

Project description:Simple Summary In the last decades, performance models have helped to comprehend the mechanisms involved in long-term physical performance. In addition, predictive models have aided in the evaluation and prescription of physical training. Here, we tested the hypothesis that physiological assessments under inclined conditions would better explain hilly running performance. We also checked the predictive role of running biomechanical, anthropometric, and neuromuscular factors. Velocity associated with maximal oxygen consumption was more predictive when assessed in inclined conditions (7%) than testing at level. Secondarily, ventilatory thresholds submaximal heart rate improved the performance models at hilly and level conditions. Spatiotemporal, strength, and anthropometric factors were not determinants of performance. Physiological assessments in inclined conditions predict 5-km running performance at hilly terrains in higher degree than evaluations at level in endurance runners. Abstract Incline and level running on treadmills have been extensively studied due to their different cardiorespiratory and biomechanical acute responses. However, there are no studies examining the performance determinants of outdoor running on hilly terrains. We aimed to investigate the influence of anthropometrics, muscle strength, and cardiorespiratory and gait spatiotemporal parameters during level (0%) and inclined (+7%) running on performance in level and hilly 5-km races. Twenty male recreational runners completed two 5-km outdoor running tests (0% vs. +7% and −7%), and two submaximal (10 km·h−1) and incremental treadmill tests at 0 and 7% slopes, after complete laboratory evaluations. The velocity at maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) evaluated at 7% incline and level treadmill running were the best performance predictors under both hilly (R2 = 0.72; p < 0.05) and level (R2 = 0.85; p < 0.01) conditions, respectively. Inclusion of ventilatory and submaximal heart rate data improved the predictive models up to 100%. Conversely, none of the parameters evaluated in one condition contributed to the other condition. The spatiotemporal parameters and the runners’ strength levels were not associated to outdoor performances. These results indicate that the vVO2max evaluated at similar slopes in the lab can be used to predict 5-km running performances on both level and hilly terrains.

Project description:This cross-sectional study aimed to obtain fundamental knowledge about pain during a marathon run. During the first seven months of 2007, announcements on websites of interest to marathon runners were used to recruit participants. A total of 1,251 runners (550 female runners) completed a 41-question online survey about the location and intensity of their primary pain during their last marathon and potentially related variables [perception of effort during the marathon, number of prior marathons run, typical pain intensity during training runs, percentage of training days with run-induced pain, highest intensity pain ever experienced]. Pain location was selected from a list of 27 specified body sites covering the entire body. Kilometer at which pain first occurred indexed pain threshold. Pain intensity at the primary location of pain was measured with a standardized, well-validated 0-10 pain intensity scale. Pearson correlations and multiple regression quantified the associations between average pain intensity and other variables. Sex-related differences in pain were tested using independent t-tests. Effort ratings (6-20) were added as a covariate in an ANCOVA to test if perceived effort accounted for possible sex-related differences in pain. Based on the available research, it was hypothesized that: (i) most runners would report moderate intensity pain, (ii) pain would be associated with both exercise intensity during the marathon and pain during training, and (iii) after adjusting for expected sex-related differences in perceived effort, females would experience pain earlier and rate the pain intensity as higher. All but two runners (99.8%) reported pain during a marathon, and most frequently in the anterior/medial thigh (17.1%), hamstring (10%), and calf (9.3%) locations. Pain threshold occurred at 25.3 ± 9.8 km (15.7 ± 6.1 miles) and the overall pain intensity of the run was 5.26 ± 2.45. No sex-related pain differences were found. Overall pain intensity during a marathon was significantly associated with: pain intensity during training runs (r = 0.39), percentage of training days with run-induced pain (r = 0.23), highest intensity pain ever experienced (r = 0.23), number of prior marathons (r = -0.18), and intensity of effort (r = 0.11) (all P < 0.001). Most runners experience moderate to very strong intensity pain during a marathon; the pain was independent of biological sex, and the pain is weakly associated with marathon race experience, pain during training, race effort, and the highest intensity of pain ever experienced.

Dataset Information

Run Clever - No difference in risk of injury when comparing progression in running volume and running intensity in recreational runners: A randomised trial.

Publications

Run Clever - No difference in risk of injury when comparing progression in running volume and running intensity in recreational runners: A randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets