Risk factors for lower extremity injuries among male marathon runners

Abstract

The aim of this study is to identify risk factors for lower extremity injuries in male marathon runners. A random sample of 1500 recreational male marathon runners was drawn. Possible risk factors were obtained from a baseline questionnaire 1 month before the start of the marathon. Information on injuries sustained shortly before or during the marathon was obtained using a post-race questionnaire. Of the 694 male runners who responded to the baseline and post-race questionnaire, 28% suffered a self-reported running injury on the lower extremities in the month before or during the marathon run. More than six times race participation in the previous 12 months [odds ratio (OR) 1.66; confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.56], a history of running injuries (OR 2.62; CI 1.82-3.78), high education level (OR 0.73; CI 0.51-1.04) and daily smoking (OR 0.23; CI 0.05-1.01) were associated with the occurrence of lower extremity injuries. Among the modifiable risk factor studies, a training distance <40 km a week is a strong protective factor of future calf injuries, and regular interval training is a strong protective factor for knee injuries. Other training characteristics appear to have little or no effect on future injuries.

What Risk Factors Are Associated With Musculoskeletal Injury in US Army Rangers? A Prospective Prognostic Study

“…Smoking is related to poorer functional outcomes, independent of the nature or severity of injury [22]. It is an independent risk factor across a variety of populations and conditions [5,26,30,42], but specifically associated with delayed healing and recurrence of pain in shoulder [6], back [29], neck [14], and multiple other exercise-related injuries [2]. It has deleterious effects on peak bone mass [8], bone mineral density [43], bone healing [28], and wound healing [4,25] as well as many other general complications [41].…”

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

“…Several studies conclude that this approach leads to training volume being estimated wrongly (18), possibly because of subject recall bias, and timeconsuming self-reporting may demotivate the participant to continue in the study (13,35). Therefore, the methods used in previous studies to measure running volume by subjective methods (questionnaires, surveys, diaries) should be taken into careful consideration.…”

How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury

“…Load is also commonly recorded and reported as the exposure to training per unit of time90 106 131 132 134 139 140 144 145 148 151 156 or the distance (mileage) of running, cycling or swimming 86–100 102 103 107 128–130 134 137 139–143 155. However, these are highly inaccurate measures of load, as they fail to account for the intensity, movement repetitions or impact load performed.…”