The training—injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder?
Парадокс профилактики травм посредством тренировок: должны ли спортсмены тренироваться более рационально и интенсивно?
2016-01-12
SCID: 54.1/newhcs6t
Discuss with AI
acute:chronic workload ratiointernal and external load monitoringnon-contact soft-tissue injuriestraining loadtraining-injury prevention paradox
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
BACKGROUND: There is dogma that higher training load causes higher injury rates. However, there is also evidence that training has a protective effect against injury. For example, team sport athletes who performed more than 18 weeks of training before sustaining their initial injuries were at reduced risk of sustaining a subsequent injury, while high chronic workloads have been shown to decrease the risk of injury. Second, across a wide range of sports, well-developed physical qualities are associated with a reduced risk of injury. Clearly, for athletes to develop the physical capacities required to provide a protective effect against injury, they must be prepared to train hard. Finally, there is also evidence that under-training may increase injury risk. Collectively, these results emphasise that reductions in workloads may not always be the best approach to protect against injury. MAIN THESIS: This paper describes the 'Training-Injury Prevention Paradox' model; a phenomenon whereby athletes accustomed to high training loads have fewer injuries than athletes training at lower workloads. The Model is based on evidence that non-contact injuries are not caused by training per se, but more likely by an inappropriate training programme. Excessive and rapid increases in training loads are likely responsible for a large proportion of non-contact, soft-tissue injuries. If training load is an important determinant of injury, it must be accurately measured up to twice daily and over periods of weeks and months (a season). This paper outlines ways of monitoring training load ('internal' and 'external' loads) and suggests capturing both recent ('acute') training loads and more medium-term ('chronic') training loads to best capture the player's training burden. I describe the critical variable-acute:chronic workload ratio-as a best practice predictor of training-related injuries. This provides the foundation for interventions to reduce players risk, and thus, time-loss injuries. SUMMARY: The appropriately graded prescription of high training loads should improve players' fitness, which in turn may protect against injury, ultimately leading to (1) greater physical outputs and resilience in competition, and (2) a greater proportion of the squad available for selection each week.
Key Findings
1
Athletes accustomed to high training loads may sustain fewer injuries than athletes training at lower workloads, constituting the proposed Training-Injury Prevention Paradox.
2
Comparing recent acute workloads with medium-term chronic workloads through the acute:chronic workload ratio is proposed as a key predictor and basis for injury-risk interventions.
3
Higher training loads are not inherently associated with higher injury rates; well-developed physical qualities and high chronic workloads may protect athletes from injury.
4
Non-contact soft-tissue injuries are more likely linked to inappropriate programmes, particularly excessive or rapid increases in training load, than to training itself.
5
Training load should be monitored frequently across days, weeks, and seasons using both internal and external measures.
Research Object
athletes and players exposed to varying training loads
Research Subject
the relationship between acute and chronic training loads and the risk of non-contact, soft-tissue injuries, including the protective effects of appropriate high workloads and the risks of excessive rapid load increases
Publication Details
Publication Date
2016-01-12
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest