Can GPS Be Used to Detect Deleterious Progression in Training Volume Among Runners?

Abstract

There is a need to ascertain if an association exists between excessive progression in weekly volume and development of running-related injuries (RRI). The purpose of this study was to investigate if GPS can be used to detect deleterious progression in weekly training volume among 60 novice runners included in a 10-week prospective study. All participants used GPS to quantify training volume while running. In case of injury, participants attended a clinical examination. The 13 runners who sustained injuries during follow-up had a significantly higher weekly progression in total training volume in the week before the injury origin (86% [95% confidence interval: 12.9-159.9], p = 0.026) compared with other weeks. Although not significant, participants with injuries had an increase in weekly training volume of 31.6% compared with a 22.1% increase among the healthy participants. The error of the GPS measurements in open landscape, forest, and urban area of volume was ≤6.2%. To conclude, no clinically relevant measurement errors of the GPS devices were found for training volume. Based on this, GPS has a potential to detect errors in training volume, which may be associated with development of RRI. Based on the results from the current study, increases in weekly training progression may become deleterious at a weekly increase above 30%, which is more than the 10% rule currently used as a guideline for correct progression in weekly volume by runners and coaches. Still, no clear evidence for safe progression of weekly volume exists. But it seems likely that some individuals may tolerate weekly progressions around 20-25%, at least for a short period of time.

Training Load and Fatigue Marker Associations with Injury and Illness: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies

“…In the 57 studies that investigated load–injury/illness relationships, many different load measures were used, including training exposure ( n   =  14, 24 %) [35, 40–52]; number of sessions/matches ( n   =  5, 8 %) [46, 47, 53–55], number of skill repetitions [e.g. number of deliveries bowled for cricketers] ( n   =  6, 10 %) [56–61]; days between/frequency of matches ( n   =  8, 14 %) [53, 55, 56, 62–66]; heart rate ( n   =  4, 7 %) [48, 55, 67, 68]; RPE ( n   =  2, 3 %) [69, 70]; sRPE ( n   =  21, 36 %) [26, 36, 40, 54, 57, 68, 70–84]; number/intensity of collisions ( n   =  2, 3 %) [64, 65]; distance [both self-reported and GPS derived] ( n   =  6, 10 %) [34, 49, 68, 69, 85, 86]; velocity/acceleration GPS-derived measures ( n   =  2, 3 %) [38, 85]; metabolic equivalents [MET] ( n  = 1, 1 %) [87]; the Baecke Physical Activity Questionnaire [88] ( n   =  1, 1 %) [89]; and a combined volume and intensity ranking [1–5 scale] ( n  = 1, 1 %) [90]. A number of fatigue measures were also used in the 26 studies that investigated fatigue–injury/illness relationships, including perceptual wellness scales ( n   =  13, 50 %) [37, 39, 48–50, 75, 80, 81, 91–95]; sleep quantity/quality ( n   =  6, 23 %) [39, 48, 71, 80, 95, 96]; immunological markers ( n   =  12, 46 %) [49, 54, 73, 82, 83, 87, 89, 90, 97–100]; and stress hormone levels ( n   =  6, 23 %) [75, 81–83, 100, …”

Incidence of Running-Related Injuries Per 1000 h of running in Different Types of Runners: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…In many studies, runners were asked to self-report their training exposure in web-based running diaries. This approach may lead to training hours or distance being estimated wrongly, possibly because of recall bias and time spent self-reporting [27]. The quality assessment tool accounted for this, and awarded no star when exposure was registered by written self-report (item 5).…”

Foot pronation is not associated with increased injury risk in novice runners wearing a neutral shoe: a 1-year prospective cohort study

“…Participants were then instructed to use http://www.vilober.dk/as their personal training diary and to upload data from every training session (running only) saved on the GPS watch in the following year. GPS has previously proven to be a valid method in order to quantify running distance among runners 11. Participants were told that they had to run in the neutral running shoe at all times.…”

“…Reference values for persons between 18 and 60 years of age and persons above 60 years are presented in table 1. Three different physiotherapists who had been performing FPI evaluations in a pilot study11 performed the evaluations assisted by two physiotherapy students. To improve the intratester and intertester reliability, we used the findings presented by Cornwall et al 16; all raters had to perform at least 30 evaluations before evaluating a participant on their own.…”