Conclusions Our results demonstrate that the existence of a relationship between training load and injury continues to be well supported in the literature and is strongest for subjective internal training load .
The directionality of this relationship appears to depend on the type and timeframe of load measured
Background The relationship between training load and musculoskeletal injury is a rapidly advancing area of research in need of an up date d systematic review .
Injury patterns in Swedish elite athletics: annual incidence, injury types and risk factors
Objective To estimate the incidence , type and severity of musculoskeletal injuries in youth and adult elite athletics athletes and to explore risk factors for sustaining injuries . Design Prospect i ve cohort study conducted during a 52-week period . Setting Male and female youth and adult athletics athletes ranked in the top 10 in Sweden ( n=292 ) . Results 199 ( 68 % ) athletes reported an injury during the study season . Ninety-six per cent of the reported injuries were non-traumatic ( associated with overuse ) . Most injuries ( 51 % ) were severe , causing a period of absence from normal training exceeding 3 weeks . Log-rank tests revealed risk differences with regard to athlete category ( p=0.046 ) , recent previous injury ( > 3 weeks time-loss ; p=0.039 ) and training load rank index ( TLRI ; p=0.019 ) . Cox proportional hazards regression analyses showed that athletes in the third ( HR 1.79 ; 95 % CI 1.54 to 2.78 ) and fourth TLRI quartiles ( HR 1.79 ; 95 % CI 1.16 to 2.74 ) had almost a twofold increased risk of injury compared with their peers in the first quartile and interaction effects between athlete category and previous injury ; youth male athletes with a previous serious injury had more than a fourfold increased risk of injury ( HR=4.39 ; 95 % CI 2.20 to 8.77 ) compared with youth females with no previous injury . Conclusions The injury incidence among both youth and adult elite athletics athletes is high . A training load index combing hours and intensity and a history of severe injury the previous year were predictors for injury . Further studies on measures to quantify training content and protocol s for safe return to athletics are warranted
Conclusions Our results demonstrate that the existence of a relationship between training load and injury continues to be well supported in the literature and is strongest for subjective internal training load .
The directionality of this relationship appears to depend on the type and timeframe of load measured
Background The relationship between training load and musculoskeletal injury is a rapidly advancing area of research in need of an up date d systematic review .