original abstract†Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
BACKGROUND: Since 2000, there has been a rapid growth in training load and injury research. In the past 5 years alone, a total of 38 studies (from as many as 24 different research groups, and 11 different sports) have investigated the relationship between loading profiles and injury. Despite the growing body of literature examining training load and injury, there is often a disconnect between this evidence and the actual training programmes prescribed in practice. In this paper, some common myths and misconceptions about training load and its role in injury and performance are reviewed.
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS: Common myths relating to training load (the role of training load in injuries, the '10% rule', the influence of spikes and troughs on injury risk and the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR)) are explored and discussed. Although the likelihood of injury is increased at an ACWR of ≥1.5 (on average), the difference between robust and fragile athletes can largely be explained by three key categories of moderators of the workload-injury relationship; 'ideal' age (ie, not too young or too old), physical qualities (eg, well-developed aerobic fitness, speed, repeated-sprint ability and lower body strength) and high chronic training load all decrease the risk associated with a given spike in workload. Rather than focusing solely on the ACWR as has been done in some studies, practitioners are advised to stratify players according to these three moderators of the workload-injury relationship (eg, age, training and injury history, physical qualities), and interpret internal and external load variables in combination with well-being and physical readiness data. When prescribing training load, the practitioner also needs to factor in injury risk factors such as poor biomechanics, academic and emotional stress, anxiety, inadequate sleep and stress-related personality traits.
These three articles on PainScience.com cite Gabbett 2018 as a source:
- PS Save Yourself from IT Band Syndrome! — All your treatment options for Iliotibial Band Syndrome reviewed in great detail, with clear explanations of recent scientific research supporting every key point
- PS Save Yourself from Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome! — Patellofemoral pain syndrome (aka runner’s knee) explained and discussed in great detail, including every imaginable self-treatment option and all the available scientific evidence
- PS The Art of Rest — The finer points of resting strategy when recovering from injury and chronic pain (hint: it’s a bit trickier than you might think)
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- A Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power. Gronau 2017 Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- The neck and headaches. Bogduk 2014 Neurol Clin.
- Agreement of self-reported items and clinically assessed nerve root involvement (or sciatica) in a primary care setting. Konstantinou 2012 Eur Spine J.
- Effect of NSAIDs on Recovery From Acute Skeletal Muscle Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Morelli 2017 Am J Sports Med.
- Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Paige 2017 JAMA.