You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 4, Issue 1
  • Run Clever – No difference in risk of injury when comparing progression in running volume and running intensity in recreational runners: A randomised trial

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Original article
Run Clever – No difference in risk of injury when comparing progression in running volume and running intensity in recreational runners: A randomised trial
  1. Daniel Ramskov1,2,
  2. Sten Rasmussen3,
  3. Henrik Sørensen1,
  4. Erik Thorlund Parner4,
  5. Martin Lind5,
  6. Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen1
  1. 1Section for Sports Science, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  2. 2Department of Physiotherapy, University College Northern Denmark, Aalborg, Denmark
  3. 3Orthopaedic Surgery Research Unit, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
  4. 4Section for Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  5. 5Department of Orthopaedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to MSc Daniel Ramskov; daniel.joergensen{at}ph.au.dk

Abstract

Background/aim The Run Clever trial investigated if there was a difference in injury occurrence across two running schedules, focusing on progression in volume of running intensity (Sch-I) or in total running volume (Sch-V). It was hypothesised that 15% more runners with a focus on progression in volume of running intensity would sustain an injury compared with runners with a focus on progression in total running volume.

Methods Healthy recreational runners were included and randomly allocated to Sch-I or Sch-V. In the first eight weeks of the 24-week follow-up, all participants (n=839) followed the same running schedule (preconditioning). Participants (n=447) not censored during the first eight weeks entered the 16-week training period with a focus on either progression in intensity (Sch-I) or volume (Sch-V). A global positioning system collected all data on running. During running, all participants received real-time, individualised feedback on running intensity and running volume. The primary outcome was running-related injury (RRI).

Results After preconditioning a total of 80 runners sustained an RRI (Sch-I n=36/Sch-V n=44). The cumulative incidence proportion (CIP) in Sch-V (reference group) were CIP2 weeks 4.6%; CIP4 weeks 8.2%; CIP8 weeks 13.2%; CIP16 weeks 28.0%. The risk differences (RD) and 95% CI between the two schedules were RD2 weeks=2.9%(−5.7% to 11.6%); RD4 weeks=1.8%(−9.1% to 12.8%); RD8 weeks=−4.7%(−17.5% to 8.1%); RD16 weeks=−14.0% (−36.9% to 8.9%).

Conclusion A similar proportion of runners sustained injuries in the two running schedules.

  • Recreational runners
  • Injury
  • Running intensity
  • Running volume
  • injury risk difference

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2017-000333

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors were involved in the drafting and revision of the manuscript and all authors approved the final version. All authors were involved in the design and conduction of the trial.

    • Funding DR was funded by Aarhus University, the Graduate School of Health. The Danish Rheumatism Association supported the study with a grant (grant number A3419).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Ethics approval This trial was approved by the ethics committee Northern Denmark Region, and the Danish Data Protection Agency approved the trial (N-20140069).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.