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:ContextThe combination of excessive increases in running pace and volume is essential to consider when investigating associations between running and running-related injury.ObjectivesTo complete a secondary analysis, using a dataset from a randomized trial, to evaluate the interactions between relative or absolute weekly changes in running volume and running pace on the occurrence of running injuries among a cohort of injury-free recreational runners in Denmark.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingRunning volume and pace were collected during a 24-week follow-up using global positioning systems data. Training data were used to calculate relative and absolute weekly changes in running volume and pace.Patients or other participantsA total of 586 recreational runners were included in the analysis. All participants were injury free at baseline.Main outcome measure(s)Running-related injury was the outcome. Injury data were collected weekly using a modified version of the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre questionnaire. Risk difference (RD) was the measure of injury risk.ResultsA total of 133 runners sustained running-related injuries. A relative weekly change of progression >10% in running volume and progression in running pace (RD = 8.1%, 95% CI = -9.3%, 25.6%) and an absolute weekly change of progression >5 km in running volume and progression in running pace (RD = 5.2%, 95% CI = -12.0%, 22.5%) were not associated with a statistically significant positive interaction.ConclusionsGiven that coaches, clinicians, and athletes may agree that excessive increases in running pace and running volume are important contributors to injury development, we analyzed the interaction between them. Although we did not identify a statistically significant positive interaction on an additive scale in runners who progressed both running pace and running volume, readers should be aware that an interaction is an important analytical approach that could be applied to other datasets in future publications.

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.

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