The never-ending search for the perfect acute:chronic workload ratio: what role injury definition?

Hulin, Billy T.

doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-097279

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lack of association of the ACWR to contact injuries is highlighted further by the large RR of non-contact injury following an acute spike compared with overall injury, suggesting that including contact injuries reduces the association of the ACWR with injury risk. Consequently, these injuries should be analysed separately when establishing workload-injury relationships and determining uniform injury definitions across research 30…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spikes in acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) associated with a 5–7 times greater injury rate in English Premier League football players: a comprehensive 3-year study

Bowen

Gross²,

Gimpel³

et al. 2019

Br J Sports Med

107

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesWe examined the relation between global positioning system (GPS)-derived workloads and injury in English Premier League football players (n=33) over three seasons.MethodsWorkload and injury data were collected over three consecutive seasons. Cumulative (1-weekly, 2-weekly, 3-weekly and 4-weekly) loads in addition to acute:chronic workload ratios (ACWR) (acute workload (1-week workload)) divided by chronic workload (previous 4-week average acute workload) were classified into discrete ranges by z-scores. Relative risk (RR) for each range was then calculated between injured and non-injured players using specific GPS variables: total distance, low-intensity distance, high-speed running distance, sprint distance, accelerations and decelerations.ResultsThe greatest non-contact injury risk was when the chronic exposure to decelerations was low (<1731) and the ACWR was >2.0 (RR=6.7). Non-contact injury risk was also 5–6 times higher for accelerations and low-intensity distance when the chronic workloads were categorised as low and the ACWR was >2.0 (RR=5.4–6.6), compared with ACWRs below this. When all chronic workloads were included, an ACWR >2.0 was associated with a significant but lesser injury risk for the same metrics, plus total distance (RR=3.7–3.9).ConclusionsWe recommend that practitioners involved in planning training for performance and injury prevention monitor the ACWR, increase chronic exposure to load and avoid spikes that approach or exceed 2.0.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spikes in acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) associated with a 5–7 times greater injury rate in English Premier League football players: a comprehensive 3-year study

Bowen

Gross²,

Gimpel³

et al. 2019

Br J Sports Med

107

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, studies of workload and injury risk have typically recorded only non-contact injuries, based on an assumption that workload is unrelated to contact injuries. 19 On the other hand, studies of overuse injuries in general require broad definitions, as athletes often continue to participate in training and competition despite being injured. 20 21 In addition, we need to consider how to capture a sports injury when it originates from sport, from an activity of daily living or from a combination of the two.…”

Section: No Universal Sports Injury Definition Is Necessarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Statement on methods in sport injury research from the 1st METHODS MATTER Meeting, Copenhagen, 2019

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High quality sports injury research can facilitate sports injury prevention and treatment. There is scope to improve how our field applies best practice methods—methods matter (greatly!). The 1st METHODS MATTER Meeting, held in January 2019 in Copenhagen, Denmark, was the forum for an international group of researchers with expertise in research methods to discuss sports injury methods. We discussed important epidemiological and statistical topics within the field of sports injury research. With this opinion document, we provide the main take-home messages that emerged from the meeting.

show abstract

“…It has been also suggested that a further step to qualify sRPE as a useful TL measure is to compare it against the changes in injury rates or performance to [31]. This practice may be misleading at present when considering the lack of consensus injury classifications [24, 25] and the difficulty sports science has in adequately defining performance (especially in open skill team sports) [51, 52]. Despite the inconsistencies in injury classification in prior research, subjective TL monitoring with sRPE seems associated with injury risk [16].…”

Section: Updates To Periodization Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it is important to understand that the ability of single variables to predict injuries will be limited considering the multitude of factors that may influence injury risk, including genetics [17], previous injury history [18], psycho-social stress [19–21], different psychological coping strategies [22], and even coaching style [23]. Additionally, the use of inconsistent injury reporting methods (e.g., “medical attention injuries” versus “match time loss only”) and the small number of injuries typically seen in many studies makes it difficult to compare results between studies [6, 24]. One solution to this issue is to adopt a universal injury categorization tool like the Subsequent Injury Classification Model 2.0 [25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring—a Practical Perspective and Call to Action

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This commentary delivers a practical perspective on the current state of subjective training load (TL) monitoring, and in particular sessional ratings of perceived exertion, for performance enhancement and injury prevention. Subjective measures may be able to reflect mental fatigue, effort, stress, and motivation. These factors appear to be important moderators of the relationship TL has with performance and injury, and they also seem to differ between open and closed skill sports. As such, mental factors may affect the interaction between TL, performance, and injury in different sports. Further, modeling these interactions may be limited due to the assumption that an independent signal can adequately account for the performance or injury outcomes. An independent signal model does not accurately reflect training environments where multiple stressors (e.g., mechanical, emotional, nutritional) impact adaptations. Common issues with using subjective TL monitoring, including a lack of differentiation between biomechanical, physiological, and cognitive load, may be overcome by considering psychometric measurement best practices, finer graded scales, and differential ratings of perceived exertion. Methods of calculating TL, including different acute and chronic time periods, may also need to be individualized to different sports and potentially different individuals within the same sport. As TL monitoring is predominately a “chronic” decision-making tool, “acute” decision-making tools, e.g., subjective wellness and autonomic nervous system measures, should be combined in a bespoke multivariate model to aid sports coaches. A call to action is presented for future research on key issues associated with TL monitoring that will have relevance for practitioners in an applied setting.

show abstract

The never-ending search for the perfect acute:chronic workload ratio: what role injury definition?

Cited by 10 publications

References 8 publications

Spikes in acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) associated with a 5–7 times greater injury rate in English Premier League football players: a comprehensive 3-year study

Spikes in acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) associated with a 5–7 times greater injury rate in English Premier League football players: a comprehensive 3-year study

Statement on methods in sport injury research from the 1st METHODS MATTER Meeting, Copenhagen, 2019

The Current State of Subjective Training Load Monitoring—a Practical Perspective and Call to Action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About