A study on running and injuries

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Burak Ilter, Mar 25, 2005.

  1. Burak Ilter

    Burak Ilter Guest

    I recently rediscovered an exercise site:
    http://www.exrx.net

    which has some good info. I found a page there suggesting a decrease in
    training load in order to prevent injuries.
    http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/RunningInjuryVO2.html

    But that page gave no details about the study. So on to google I went.
    Here is the full study:
    http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/35/6/383


    It seems that this was a study of studies. And at the conclusion is is
    stated that for most points (stretching, shock absorbing footwear) there
    is no evident result.
    The result about training load is: "Strong evidence is presented that
    injury incidence can be decreased by reducing the frequency, duration,
    and distance".

    But the studies are not made on runners. The subjects are military
    recruits and such. Anyway, it got me thinking that if 3 weekly runnings
    should suffice for shorter distances (10K or less). I do not think that
    longer distances can be done using such a trainig load.

    But, then again why is there a high rate of injuries in this group with
    Phil being the most recent injured (Phil, I hope you will get better
    soon enough to resume your training)?
    --
    Burak
    please remove Dot NOREPLY Dot to reply
     
    Tags:


  2. Phil M.

    Phil M. Guest

    Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from
    [email protected] of 25 Mar 2005:

    > I recently rediscovered an exercise site:
    > http://www.exrx.net


    Great site. Good information there.

    > But, then again why is there a high rate of injuries in this group


    You don't hear from a lot of the runners that don't have an injury. My
    guess is a lot of people will get an injury, then post to rec.running to
    seek help. You aren't hearing from people saying "I'm injury free." They
    are either not reading rec.running or just lurking. So your assumption
    that this group is full of injured runners is based on slanted data, IMO.

    > Phil being the most recent injured (Phil, I hope you will get better
    > soon enough to resume your training)?


    Thanks Burak. I've mentally prepared myself for the fact that I may not
    run Boston. I'm still going to have a good time there, no matter what
    happens. The thought of having put in around 1,000 miles of training for
    this one event was a little hard to take. Nonetheless, I enjoyed running
    most of those miles, so they aren't wasted.

    Phil M.

    --
    Don't quit when the hill is steepest,
    For your goal is almost nigh;
    Don't quit, for you're not a failure
    UNTIL YOU FAIL TO TRY."

    --Jill Wolf
     
  3. amphioxus

    amphioxus Guest

    I am injury free

    "Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from
    > [email protected] of 25 Mar 2005:
    >
    >> I recently rediscovered an exercise site:
    >> http://www.exrx.net

    >
    > Great site. Good information there.
    >
    >> But, then again why is there a high rate of injuries in this group

    >
    > You don't hear from a lot of the runners that don't have an injury. My
    > guess is a lot of people will get an injury, then post to rec.running to
    > seek help. You aren't hearing from people saying "I'm injury free." They
    > are either not reading rec.running or just lurking. So your assumption
    > that this group is full of injured runners is based on slanted data, IMO.
    >
    >> Phil being the most recent injured (Phil, I hope you will get better
    >> soon enough to resume your training)?

    >
    > Thanks Burak. I've mentally prepared myself for the fact that I may not
    > run Boston. I'm still going to have a good time there, no matter what
    > happens. The thought of having put in around 1,000 miles of training for
    > this one event was a little hard to take. Nonetheless, I enjoyed running
    > most of those miles, so they aren't wasted.
    >
    > Phil M.
    >
    > --
    > Don't quit when the hill is steepest,
    > For your goal is almost nigh;
    > Don't quit, for you're not a failure
    > UNTIL YOU FAIL TO TRY."
    >
    > --Jill Wolf
     
  4. amphioxus wrote:
    > I am injury free


    I am thefrankshorter

    I am injury free


    >
    > "Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from
    >>[email protected] of 25 Mar 2005:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I recently rediscovered an exercise site:
    >>>http://www.exrx.net

    >>
    >>Great site. Good information there.
    >>
    >>
    >>>But, then again why is there a high rate of injuries in this group

    >>
    >>You don't hear from a lot of the runners that don't have an injury. My
    >>guess is a lot of people will get an injury, then post to rec.running to
    >>seek help. You aren't hearing from people saying "I'm injury free." They
    >>are either not reading rec.running or just lurking. So your assumption
    >>that this group is full of injured runners is based on slanted data, IMO.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Phil being the most recent injured (Phil, I hope you will get better
    >>>soon enough to resume your training)?

    >>
    >>Thanks Burak. I've mentally prepared myself for the fact that I may not
    >>run Boston. I'm still going to have a good time there, no matter what
    >>happens. The thought of having put in around 1,000 miles of training for
    >>this one event was a little hard to take. Nonetheless, I enjoyed running
    >>most of those miles, so they aren't wasted.
    >>
    >>Phil M.
    >>
    >>--
    >>Don't quit when the hill is steepest,
    >>For your goal is almost nigh;
    >>Don't quit, for you're not a failure
    >>UNTIL YOU FAIL TO TRY."
    >>
    >> --Jill Wolf

    >
    >
    >
     
  5. On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:05:57 +0100, "amphioxus" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I am injury free

    i wasn't. i am now. i've slowly found out what causes
    problems for me and i've either found the solution or
    dropped that particular workout. i guess i could
    trumpet it to the skys that i don't have a problem
    right now but, really, what for? a running associate
    is also injury free and always has been.

    granted we are low-milage runners. and slow compared
    to most.
    ....thehick
     
  6. Tim Downie

    Tim Downie Guest

    Phil M. wrote:
    > You don't hear from a lot of the runners that don't have an injury. My
    > guess is a lot of people will get an injury, then post to rec.running
    > to seek help. You aren't hearing from people saying "I'm injury
    > free."


    I'm injury free! ;-)

    Tim
     
  7. Phil M.

    Phil M. Guest

    Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from timdownie2003
    @obvious.yahoo.co.uk of 25 Mar 2005:

    > Phil M. wrote:
    >> You don't hear from a lot of the runners that don't have an injury. My
    >> guess is a lot of people will get an injury, then post to rec.running
    >> to seek help. You aren't hearing from people saying "I'm injury
    >> free."

    >
    > I'm injury free! ;-)


    OK smart guy. ;-) You're a regular poster. There are a lot of people that
    post to rec.running about their injury, get their answer, then leave until
    their next injury.

    Phil M.
     
  8. rick++

    rick++ Guest

    The military studies are biased toward the first year,
    in fact first eight weeks of running. Its common for
    young people to ramp up too quickly, especially in a
    competative macho environent.
     
  9. amphioxus

    amphioxus Guest

    That is the point. The best general advice to avoid injuries is (in addition
    to obvious things as good shoes, Don't cross the road when a truck is
    approaching etc.) 'Don't try to improve you're personal best every time or
    even every two weeks'. Take it (relatively) easy. Using a heart rate monitor
    and keeping within the min/max limits has helped me and many others a lot,
    but it has nothing to do with my heart or blood circulation, it just
    prevents you from going too fast, and overstressing your joints and tendons.
    If you really want to run the marathon in 2h30', it becomes a different
    story and you have to takes the risk of injuries.

    Seriously, I think that information of people who do not have injuries may
    be as useful as of those who seem to have done it wrong.I wonder if there
    are scientists or others that collect data from all runners to produce
    informative statistics. Juts looking at injured people may give a wrong
    impression. Just like in other health-relted issues: the best way of seeing
    what imports in healt is starting from large cohorts of normal average
    people and follow them (and their habits: eating, exercise) through the
    years, and see who gets cancer or heart attacks and who doesn't.

    Takes a lot of time before you can draw any conclusion, though..





    Amph



    "frank-in-toronto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:05:57 +0100, "amphioxus" <[email protected]>



    > trumpet it to the skys that i don't have a problem
    > right now but, really, what for? a running associate
    > is also injury free and always has been.
    >
    > granted we are low-milage runners. and slow compared
    > to most.
    > ...thehick
     
  10. Burak Ilter

    Burak Ilter Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > You don't hear from a lot of the runners that don't have an injury. My
    > guess is a lot of people will get an injury, then post to rec.running to
    > seek help. You aren't hearing from people saying "I'm injury free." They
    > are either not reading rec.running or just lurking. So your assumption
    > that this group is full of injured runners is based on slanted data, IMO.

    You are right of course. But among regular posters here how many are
    injured during a year? I do not think the percentage is very low, though
    it may be lower that the study I referred since that study was based on
    inexperienced runners.

    What I wonder is if there is any efficient way to work the cardio system
    with some cross training and decrease the running load. Maybe 3-4 runs
    weekly would be enough for most distances (shorter than marathons or
    longer possibly) if some training with bike, rowing, etc. is done.
    --
    Burak
    please remove Dot NOREPLY Dot to reply
     
  11. Phil M.

    Phil M. Guest

    Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from
    [email protected] of 28 Mar 2005:

    > What I wonder is if there is any efficient way to work the cardio
    > system with some cross training and decrease the running load.


    Like swimming and cycling? Isn't this how the triathlon evolved?

    Phil M.
     
  12. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    "Burak Ilter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > What I wonder is if there is any efficient way to work the cardio
    > system
    > with some cross training and decrease the running load.


    Of course, if your goal is to have good cardio any activity that gets
    you heart pumping for some 30+ minutes will do the trick.

    > Maybe 3-4 runs
    > weekly would be enough for most distances (shorter than marathons or
    > longer possibly) if some training with bike, rowing, etc. is done.


    3-4 runs per week will satisfy the running basics(unless you doing 10-15
    miles per week) but if you want to do your "best," this will not be
    enough. If you want to run well you need to run, if you want to bike
    well you need to bike.....specificity

    -DougF
     
  13. Burak Ilter

    Burak Ilter Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...
    >
    > "Burak Ilter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > What I wonder is if there is any efficient way to work the cardio
    > > system
    > > with some cross training and decrease the running load.

    >
    > Of course, if your goal is to have good cardio any activity that gets
    > you heart pumping for some 30+ minutes will do the trick.
    >
    > > Maybe 3-4 runs
    > > weekly would be enough for most distances (shorter than marathons or
    > > longer possibly) if some training with bike, rowing, etc. is done.

    >
    > 3-4 runs per week will satisfy the running basics(unless you doing 10-15
    > miles per week) but if you want to do your "best," this will not be
    > enough. If you want to run well you need to run, if you want to bike
    > well you need to bike.....specificity
    >
    > -DougF
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Lets assume a goal of pure running time goal (although my goal is
    somewhat different). Given that how much and to what extent is it
    possible to use cross training? Maybe if I put into other words, how
    much of running depends solely on cardio? Granted one will lose some of
    his/her "capacity" to run faster, but just how much? (am I just raving?)

    I cannot even make educated guesses about these questions. I do not
    think we can take pros as a sample group here because they have to push
    themselves to their limit whereas we can stop a little short of that.

    --
    Burak
    please remove Dot NOREPLY Dot to reply
     
  14. Burak Ilter

    Burak Ilter Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    says...
    > Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from
    > [email protected] of 28 Mar 2005:
    >
    > > What I wonder is if there is any efficient way to work the cardio
    > > system with some cross training and decrease the running load.

    >
    > Like swimming and cycling? Isn't this how the triathlon evolved?
    >
    > Phil M.
    >

    I think the aim of the evolution of triathlon was not cardio benefits
    but just doing all 3 disciplines in one event. But as a side effect
    maybe biking helps triathletes decrease their running times too (I do
    not believe swimming helps much, it almost entirely depends on
    technique).
    --
    Burak
    please remove Dot NOREPLY Dot to reply
     
  15. On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:34:24 +0300, Burak Ilter
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    ....
    >Lets assume a goal of pure running time goal (although my goal is
    >somewhat different). Given that how much and to what extent is it
    >possible to use cross training? Maybe if I put into other words, how
    >much of running depends solely on cardio? Granted one will lose some of
    >his/her "capacity" to run faster, but just how much? (am I just raving?)

    i'm going to assume that your goal is not just time-on-your-feet,
    but that you're really asking do i have to run to improve.
    and you're also asking, will bike time help me run.
    well, sure. bike will mostly work your quads which
    flat running doesn't much. so you'll regain some
    muscle balance. it'll work your heart almost as well
    as running so you'll gain there. it won't use as many
    calories cause you're sitting. but it will help.

    give some more thought to your immediate and long term
    goals. if that translates into there being some
    "easy" run days, make some of them bike days. be careful
    to set your bike up correctly so you don't hurt your knees.
    the days off running may allow you to come back stronger.
    then your "hard" days will be more productive.
    ....thehick
     
  16. On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:38:04 +0300, Burak Ilter
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    >says...
    >> Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from
    >> [email protected] of 28 Mar 2005:
    >>
    >> > What I wonder is if there is any efficient way to work the cardio
    >> > system with some cross training and decrease the running load.

    >>
    >> Like swimming and cycling? Isn't this how the triathlon evolved?
    >>
    >> Phil M.
    >>

    >I think the aim of the evolution of triathlon was not cardio benefits
    >but just doing all 3 disciplines in one event. But as a side effect
    >maybe biking helps triathletes decrease their running times too (I do
    >not believe swimming helps much, it almost entirely depends on
    >technique).


    Hard swimming is good cardio work. Your speed depends on technique
    but a hard workout will build your endurance independent of you
    technique. If you swim with fins you build up your quads and calves
    and strengthen your knees.

    _g
     
  17. Dot

    Dot Guest

    Burak Ilter wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] says...
    >
    >>"Burak Ilter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>What I wonder is if there is any efficient way to work the cardio
    >>>system
    >>>with some cross training and decrease the running load.

    >>
    >>Of course, if your goal is to have good cardio any activity that gets
    >>you heart pumping for some 30+ minutes will do the trick.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Maybe 3-4 runs
    >>>weekly would be enough for most distances (shorter than marathons or
    >>>longer possibly) if some training with bike, rowing, etc. is done.

    >>
    >>3-4 runs per week will satisfy the running basics(unless you doing 10-15
    >>miles per week) but if you want to do your "best," this will not be
    >>enough. If you want to run well you need to run, if you want to bike
    >>well you need to bike.....specificity
    >>
    >>-DougF
    >>
    >>


    >
    > Lets assume a goal of pure running time goal (although my goal is
    > somewhat different). Given that how much and to what extent is it
    > possible to use cross training? Maybe if I put into other words, how
    > much of running depends solely on cardio?


    Some, but not all, as I think TrailRunner pointed out about trails. With
    road running, I'm thinking a lot is cardio and some biomechanical
    efficiency. Training the neural system to run has a lot to do with
    efficiency and total performance.


    >Granted one will lose some of
    > his/her "capacity" to run faster, but just how much? (am I just raving?)


    different for different folks probably

    >
    > I cannot even make educated guesses about these questions. I do not
    > think we can take pros as a sample group here because they have to push
    > themselves to their limit whereas we can stop a little short of that.
    >


    Warning: Dot-type post to follow ;) Look away now if not interested.

    Let me build on Doug's comment about specificity and use trail races as
    an example, which may or may not be what you're asking about. Someone
    like Yessis considers hill training to be cross training since hills use
    a different stride than for a track or flat road race. In the same
    manner, one could say that track training is xt for trail running.

    Summer races are usually on dirt trails. In many parts of the country,
    trails are snow covered from October to April (Aug to July in other
    parts). Dirt trails have rocks, roots, loose gravel, etc that aren't
    usually an issue with snow cover. Footing is different. Running on snow
    (with / without snowshoes) is different from regular running, but it's
    the best approximation to dirt trail running we have right now. (I
    actually was on dirt for a little bit last week before the recent snow.)

    Now dealing with obstacles like rocks, root, etc requires more agility
    than road running and snowshoe running on groomed trails, usually. In my
    cross-training class, we do plyometrics and agility drills to work on
    quickly moving feet. I contend that some of that in conjunction with
    regular running prepares *me* better for a trail race with roots and
    rocks than pure running when we're in winter wonderland mode. YMMV.

    One of my races that I'm considering has about 3500 ft up in 4.5 miles.
    I can't do that realistically on a treadmill or my regular trail (75 ft
    max hill). I need to hit the mountains - now, preferably a few weeks ago
    - to start getting legs built up for that. Mtns are still very snow
    covered - with a fresh blanket. I finally got trekking poles to use with
    my snowshoes and hiked a little bit (about 40 min up) on one of the
    local big hills (about 1200 ft in 1 mi or less; very spooky on snowshoes
    in the steep parts). No, because of the snow, I couldn't get the power
    hike in that I'd intended, but I was able to work my quads and hams in a
    way they hadn't been worked in a while - and something I need more
    specifically for race.

    BTW, at an "easy" effort walking, I had my hr up within 2 min and had to
    be careful not to get in LT zone. On an attempted run the day before on
    a flat area with lousy footing, I don't think I had my hr up for more
    than a few minutes. In this case, snowshoe hiking was better for both
    cardio and specificity. (Actually, that race is early enough, there's a
    good chance of having some snow in the pass still although I won't have
    snowshoes.)

    What I'm contending is that there are portions of a race that you may be
    better off cross-training for than to just run the same ol' way all the
    time. That's why I try to find out what the course is like, then break
    it down into components, and train the best I can for each of those. The
    biomechanics has to be trained besides the cardio and strength
    endurance. My goals aren't speed, but these same principles apply.


    Dot
    spring usually follows the March windstorms (a week ago) and March snow
    dump (started yesterday, continued today, maybe a little more during the
    week)

    --
    "Do or do not. There is no try." -Yoda
     
  18. Burak Ilter

    Burak Ilter Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected]#duh?att.net says...
    > What I'm contending is that there are portions of a race that you may be
    > better off cross-training for than to just run the same ol' way all the
    > time. That's why I try to find out what the course is like, then break
    > it down into components, and train the best I can for each of those. The
    > biomechanics has to be trained besides the cardio and strength
    > endurance. My goals aren't speed, but these same principles apply.

    Thanks for the reply Dot. Your thoughts seem very reasonable.
    --
    Burak
    please remove Dot NOREPLY Dot to reply
     
Loading...
Loading...