Training load--injury paradox: is greater preseason participation associated with lower in-season injury risk in elite rugby league players?

Windt, Johann; Gabbett, Tim J.; Ferris, Daniel P.; Khan, Karim M.

doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-095973

Cited by 92 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…27,41,54,[74][75][76][77] Collectively, these results suggest that training load might best be described as the "vehicle" that drives athletes toward or away from injury. 78 In the first study to demonstrate the protective effect of high training loads, Hulin et al 74 reported that cricket fast bowlers who bowled a greater number of balls over a 4-week period (ie, chronic training load) had a lower risk of injury than bowlers who bowled fewer balls. These findings have subsequently been replicated across a wide range of sports (eg, rugby league, Australian football, Gaelic football) and have given rise to the ACWR (previously referred to as training-stress balance) 76 (size of current training load relative to chronic).…”

Section: Athlete-load Monitoring and Injury Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement

Bourdon¹,

Cardinale²,

Murray³

et al. 2017

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

643

666

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring the load placed on athletes in both training and competition has become a very hot topic in sport science. Both scientists and coaches routinely monitor training loads using multidisciplinary approaches, and the pursuit of the best methodologies to capture and interpret data has produced an exponential increase in empirical and applied research. Indeed, the field has developed with such speed in recent years that it has given rise to industries aimed at developing new and novel paradigms to allow us to precisely quantify the internal and external loads placed on athletes and to help protect them from injury and ill health. In February 2016, a conference on "Monitoring Athlete Training Loads-The Hows and the Whys" was convened in Doha, Qatar, which brought together experts from around the world to share their applied research and contemporary practices in this rapidly growing field and also to investigate where it may branch to in the future. This consensus statement brings together the key findings and recommendations from this conference in a shared conceptual framework for use by coaches, sport-science and -medicine staff, and other related professionals who have an interest in monitoring athlete training loads and serves to provide an outline on what athlete-load monitoring is and how it is being applied in research and practice, why load monitoring is important and what the underlying rationale and prospective goals of monitoring are, and where athlete-load monitoring is heading in the future.

show abstract

Section: Athlete-load Monitoring and Injury Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement

Bourdon¹,

Cardinale²,

Murray³

et al. 2017

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

643

666

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, they also demonstrated that as long as acute:chronic workload ratios were kept within a moderate zone (0.85–1.35), high chronic workloads were associated with the lowest risks of injuries, other than in the case of players with very low (<2 SD) acute:chronic ratios (table 2). 13 In a subsequent rugby league study, the odds of sustaining an injury during the competitive season were decreased by 17% for every 10 preseason sessions that players completed, controlling for in-season workloads 67…”

Section: Workloads and Injuries—what Do We Know?mentioning

confidence: 99%

How do training and competition workloads relate to injury? The workload—injury aetiology model

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Injury aetiology models that have evolved over the previous two decades highlight a number of factors which contribute to the causal mechanisms for athletic injuries. These models highlight the pathway to injury, including (1) internal risk factors (eg, age, neuromuscular control) which predispose athletes to injury, (2) exposure to external risk factors (eg, playing surface, equipment), and finally (3) an inciting event, wherein biomechanical breakdown and injury occurs. The most recent aetiological model proposed in 2007 was the first to detail the dynamic nature of injury risk, whereby participation may or may not result in injury, and participation itself alters injury risk through adaptation. However, although training and competition workloads are strongly associated with injury, existing aetiology models neither include them nor provide an explanation for how workloads alter injury risk. Therefore, we propose an updated injury aetiology model which includes the effects of workloads. Within this model, internal risk factors are differentiated into modifiable and non-modifiable factors, and workloads contribute to injury in three ways: (1) exposure to external risk factors and potential inciting events, (2) fatigue, or negative physiological effects, and (3) fitness, or positive physiological adaptations. Exposure is determined solely by total load, while positive and negative adaptations are controlled both by total workloads, as well as changes in load (eg, the acute:chronic workload ratio). Finally, we describe how this model explains the load-injury relationships for total workloads, acute:chronic workload ratios and the training load-injury paradox.

show abstract

“…Findings conflicted. Hulin et al 1 demonstrated that acute:chronic workload ratios >1.5 were associated with injury, while Windt et al 6 did not find that relationship. However, Hulin et al 1 considered an injury to be ‘any time-loss injury that resulted in a player being unable to complete full training or missing match time’; Windt et al 6 investigated injuries that resulted in ‘match time loss only’.…”

Section: We Should Not Overlook Injury Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hulin et al 1 demonstrated that acute:chronic workload ratios >1.5 were associated with injury, while Windt et al 6 did not find that relationship. However, Hulin et al 1 considered an injury to be ‘any time-loss injury that resulted in a player being unable to complete full training or missing match time’; Windt et al 6 investigated injuries that resulted in ‘match time loss only’. Please note that previous workload-injury studies have included a broader injury definition that encompasses ‘any pain or disability suffered by a player during a match or training session and subsequently assessed during or immediately after the match or training session’ (ie, ‘medical attention injuries’) 7…”

Section: We Should Not Overlook Injury Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Hulin

2017

Br J Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Training load--injury paradox: is greater preseason participation associated with lower in-season injury risk in elite rugby league players?

Abstract: Maximising participation in preseason training may protect elite rugby league players against in-season injury.

Cited by 92 publications

References 29 publications

Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement

Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement

How do training and competition workloads relate to injury? The workload—injury aetiology model

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About