SeRUN® study: Development of running profiles using a mixed methods analysis

Besomi, Manuela; Leppe, Jaime; Silvestre, María Cristina Di; Setchell, Jenny

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200389

Cited by 21 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The distance analysis revealed that weekly volume was only a protective factor for 21km and 42km runners. This result might be explained because of the profile of runner who participates in 10km races, with less year of experience and more recreational (Besomi, Leppe, Di Silvestre, & Setchell, 2018). Our findings are consistent with Rasmussen et al (2013), who reported that the relative risk of suffering an injury rose by RR= 2.02 [95% CI: 1.26; 3.24; p < 0.01] among runners with an average weekly training volume below 30 km/week compared with runners with an average weekly training volume of 30-60 km/week.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training volume and previous injury as associated factors for running-related injuries by race distance: A cross-sectional study

Besomi¹,

Leppe²,

Mauri-Stecca³

et al. 2019

jhse

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aims to determine the relationship between weekly pre-competition running volume and the presence of running-related injuries (RRIs) by race distance. Methods: An online questionnaire was sent to 25,000 participants, 14 days following the running event. The questionnaire included the presence and topography of RRIs, previous injury in the last 12 months, running experience, training, and sociodemographic characteristics. Univariate and multivariable binomial regression was used to analyse the crude and adjusted relationship of RRI and training volumes. Results: 4380 surveys were analysed (10km, n=1316; 21km, n= 2168; 42km, n=896). The median age was 36 years. Previous injury was reported by 51.8% of the respondents. Median training volume in the previous month was 15 km/week (IQR 6-24), 30 km/week (IQR 15-40) and 45 km/week (IQR 30-60), for the 10km, 21km, and 42km distances, respectively. During the race, 14.1% reported a RRI, with 43.1% located at the knee. The multivariable analysis showed previous injury and distance as the main associated factors, whereas weekly training volume, age, and previous participation were protective. Conclusion: Race is an inciting event for developing a RRI. Running race distance is an important factor itself and should be incorporated with other modifiable risk factors in current injury models.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training volume and previous injury as associated factors for running-related injuries by race distance: A cross-sectional study

Besomi¹,

Leppe²,

Mauri-Stecca³

et al. 2019

jhse

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The differences in our findings might be due to the study population, study design and definition of running-related injury used. The current study included runners with a high level of running experience (mainly Advanced profile) [ 7 ], and the included race distances were higher (10 km, 21 km and 42 km). Likewise, the frequency of running-related injuries found in this study (7%) was lower than those reported in other studies [ 12 , 13 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A relationship between a new injury and training load was not possible to establish. However, given the high experience level of the population, it is highly likely that runners with greater knowledge about how to manage their training plan can self-manage their running-related symptoms [ 7 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The questionnaire included the following information: presence and topography of RRIs during competition (new), old previous injury (from month 12th–4th before the race), recent previous injury (from month 3rd–0 before the race), SeRUN® running profiles (years of running experience), training factors (weekly mileage for weeks 1, 2, 3 and 4 prior to the competition; hours and frequency of running training), race distance (10 km, 21 km, or 42 km) and socio-demographic characteristics. According to a previous study [ 7 ], SeRUN® running profiles were classified as follows: Beginner, Basic, Middle and Advanced. According to the weekly mileage variable, acute volume (week prior to competition), chronic volume and acute chronic workload ratio (coupled ACWR) [ 8 ] were calculated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recent Versus Old Previous Injury and Its Association with Running-Related Injuries During Competition by SeRUN® Running Profiles: a Cross-sectional Study

Leppe

Besomi

2018

Sports Med - Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPrevious injury in the last 12 months is the main risk factor for future running-related injuries (RRI) during training and competition environments. However, the relationship between a recent versus old previous injury and a new RRI has not been established yet, nor a separate analysis by different types of runners.MethodsAn online questionnaire was sent to 6000 participants of a running event (10 km, 21 km and 42 km), 10 days following the event. The questionnaire included the following information: the presence and topography of new RRIs during the race, old previous injury (from 12–4 months before the race), recent previous injury (from 3–0 months before the race), running experience, training factors and socio-demographic characteristics. Univariate binomial regression analysis was applied to assess different associated factors, and multivariable binomial backward regression (p < 0.05) was used to analyse the relationship between the new and previous injury.ResultsA total of 868 surveys were analysed (10 km, 32.6%; 21 km, 52%; 42 km, 15.4%). The median age was 38 years (IQR 31–46), and 63.5% were males. Previous injury was reported by 30.3% and 27.6% for old and recent, respectively. The majority of runners were categorised into the advanced group (42.9%), having more than 5 years of running experience. During the race, 7.0% reported a RRI, with 36.1% located at the knee. The multivariable analysis showed an association only between new injury and recent injury.ConclusionThe delineation of recent and old previous injuries should be considered in running epidemiological research.

show abstract

“…Literature has presented a variety of definitions for different running levels. Studies have suggested standard definitions for different runner levels, which have been derived from subjective questionnaires [ 6 , 7 ]. However, these definitions are often not translated to biomechanical studies examining footwear features for runners.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shoe feature recommendations for different running levels: A Delphi study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Providing runners with footwear that match their functional needs has the potential to improve footwear comfort, enhance running performance and reduce the risk of overuse injuries. It is currently not known how footwear experts make decisions about different shoe features and their properties for runners of different levels. We performed a Delphi study in order to understand: 1) definitions of different runner levels, 2) which footwear features are considered important and 3) how these features should be prescribed for runners of different levels. Experienced academics, journalists, coaches, bloggers and physicians that examine the effects of footwear on running were recruited to participate in three rounds of a Delphi study. Three runner level definitions were refined throughout this study based on expert feedback. Experts were also provided a list of 20 different footwear features. They were asked which features were important and what the properties of those features should be. Twenty-four experts, most with 10+ years of experience, completed all three rounds of this study. These experts came to a consensus for the characteristics of three different running levels. They indicated that 12 of the 20 footwear features initially proposed were important for footwear design. Of these 12 features, experts came to a consensus on how to apply five footwear feature properties for all three different running levels. These features were: upper breathability, forefoot bending stiffness, heel-to-toe drop, torsional bending stiffness and crash pad. Interestingly, the experts were not able to come to a consensus on one of the most researched footwear features, rearfoot midsole hardness. These recommendations can provide a starting point for further biomechanical studies, especially for features that are considered as important, but have not yet been examined experimentally.

show abstract

SeRUN® study: Development of running profiles using a mixed methods analysis

Cited by 21 publications

References 38 publications

Training volume and previous injury as associated factors for running-related injuries by race distance: A cross-sectional study

Training volume and previous injury as associated factors for running-related injuries by race distance: A cross-sectional study

Recent Versus Old Previous Injury and Its Association with Running-Related Injuries During Competition by SeRUN® Running Profiles: a Cross-sectional Study

Shoe feature recommendations for different running levels: A Delphi study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About