Training Load and Injury Part 1: The Devil Is in the Detail—Challenges to Applying the Current Research in the Training Load and Injury Field
Abstract
Background
This article sets the scene for a critique of the research underpinning 2 common clinical assumptions: (1) training workload is a key factor influencing sports injury risk, and (2) training workload can be manipulated to reduce injury risk. In this clinical commentary, we address why it is important for clinicians to critically evaluate the evidence behind research conclusions.
Clinical Question
Has research been designed and conducted well enough to help clinicians answer the questions, “What is the relationship between training workload and sports injury risk?” and “Can the metrics based on training workload be used to decrease injury risk?”
Key Results
In the past decade, many sports injury researchers have developed new measures of exposure, based on internal and external training workload, to study the relationship between training load and injury. Some of these metrics may have been embraced by researchers and clinicians because (1) they are apparently supported by the scientific literature, (2) they are simple to calculate and use (averages and their ratio), and (3) there is an apparent reasonable rationale/narrative to support using workload metrics. However, intentional or unintentional questionable research practices and overinterpretation of research results undermine the trustworthiness of research in the training load and sports injury field.
Clinical Application
Clinicians should always aim to critically examine the credibility of the evidence behind a research conclusion before implementing research findings in practice. Something that initially looks promising and inviting might not be as revolutionary or useful as one first anticipated. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(10):574–576. Epub 1 Aug 2020. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9675
References
- 1. Unravelling confusion in sports medicine and sports science practice: a systematic approach to using the best of research and practice-based evidence to make a quality decision. Br J Sports Med. 2019; 53: 50– 56. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097239 Crossref Medline Google Scholar
- 2. High training workloads alone do not cause sports injuries: how you get there is the real issue. Br J Sports Med. 2016; 50: 444– 445. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095567 Crossref Medline Google Scholar
- 3. Occurrence and nature of questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research publications: a structured assessment of publications authored by researchers in the Netherlands. BMJ Open. 2019; 9: e027903. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027903 Crossref Medline Google Scholar
- 4. Spikes in acute workload are associated with increased injury risk in elite cricket fast bowlers. Br J Sports Med. 2014; 48: 708– 712. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-092524 Crossref Medline Google Scholar
- 5. Musculoskeletal adaptations and injuries due to overtraining. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1992; 20: 99– 126. Medline Google Scholar
- 6. Modeling human performance in running. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1990; 69: 1171– 1177. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1990.69.3.1171 Crossref Medline Google Scholar
- 7. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017; 1:art 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021 Crossref Google Scholar
- 8. 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: 1030– 1041. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096581 Crossref Medline Google Scholar
- 9. Distinguishing between causal and non-causal associations: implications for sports medicine clinicians. Br J Sports Med. 2019; 53: 398– 399. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098520 Crossref Medline Google Scholar
- 10. Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: a checklist to avoid p-hacking. Front Psychol. 2016; 7: 1832. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832 Crossref Medline Google Scholar
