A study on running and injuries



B

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
 
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
 
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
 
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

>
>
>
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
"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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
dot.h@#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