The NLstart2run study: running related injuries in novice runners:Running related injuries in novice runners

Hardlopen is wereldwijd een populaire sport welke vaak wordt beoefend voor de positieve gezondheidseffecten. Er is echter een keerzijde. Hardlopers worden vaak geplaagd door blessures. Een probleem waar veelal beginners tegenaan lopen. Dit proefschrift beschrijft de NLstart2run studie, een onderzoek waarin een groep van 1.700 beginnende hardlopers gedurende een 6-weekse “Start to Run” cursus is gevolgd. Doel van dit onderzoek was de kennis betreffende incidentie en risicofactoren voor hardloopblessures te vergroten. Dit zal uiteindelijk moeten bijdragen aan de introductie van blessurepreventieve maatregelen. Tijdens de loopcursus liep 10,9% van de deelnemers een blessure op wat gelijk was aan een incidentie van 27,5 blessures per 1.000 uur hardlopen. De meeste blessures ontstonden rond de knie (38,4%) en kuit (20,0%). Hardlopers zonder hardloopervaring, met vroegere beweeg klachten, een hogere leeftijd en hogere BMI hadden een verhoogd risico op het ontstaan van een blessure. Daarnaast bleek trainingsfrequentie geen significante relatie met blessure ontstaan te hebben en trainen op hogere intensiteit in de voorafgaande week het blessurerisico te verhogen. Meer dan 60 minuten hardlopen in de voorgaande week bleek het blessurerisico te verlagen. Dit is verrassend, omdat dit betekent dat minder hardlopen het blessurerisico verhoogd. Waarschijnlijk liggen andere factoren hieraan ten grondslag. In toekomstige studies moeten we ons daarom realiseren dat de relatie tussen training en blessure verandert door persoonsfactoren. Dit inzicht moet gebruikt gaan worden om persoonspecifieke trainingsprogramma’s aan te kunnen bieden met als doel het blessurerisico te verlagen. Vanuit dit oogpunt kan een digitale coaching app veel mogelijkheden voor zowel onderzoek als implementatie

What are the Differences in Injury Proportions Between Different Populations of Runners?:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

_Background:_ Many runners suffer from injuries. No information on high-risk populations is available so far though. _Objectives:_ The aims of this study were to systematically review injury proportions in different populations of runners and to compare injury locations between these populations. _Data Sources:_ An electronic search with no date restrictions was conducted up to February 2014 in the PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases. The search was limited to original articles written in English. The reference lists of the included articles were checked for potentially relevant studies. _Study Eligibility Criteria:_ Studies were eligible when the proportion of running injuries was reported and the participants belonged to one or more homogeneous populations of runners that were clearly described. Study selection was conducted by two independent reviewers, and disagreements were resolved in a consensus meeting. _Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods:_ Details of the study design, population of runners, sample size, injury definition, method of injury assessment, number of injuries and injury locations were extracted from the articles. The risk of bias was assessed with a scale consisting of eight items, which was specifically developed for studies focusing on musculoskeletal complaints. _Results:_ A total of 86 articles were included in this review. Where possible, injury proportions were pooled for each identified population of runners, using a random-effects model. Injury proportions were affected by injury definitions and durations of follow-up. Large differences between populations existed. The number of medical-attention injuries during an event was small for most populations of runners, except for ultra-marathon runners, in which the pooled estimate was 65.6 %. Time-loss injury proportions between different populations of runners ranged from 3.2 % in cross-country runners to 84.9 % in novice runners. Overall, the proportions were highest among short-distance track runners and ultra-marathon runners. _Limitations:_ The results were pooled by stratification of studies according to the population, injury definition and follow-up/recall period; however, heterogeneity was high. _Conclusions:_ Large differences in injury proportions between different populations of runners existed. Injury proportions were affected by the duration of follow-up. A U-shaped pattern between the running distance and the time-loss injury proportion seemed to exist. Future prospective studies of injury surveillance are highly recommended to take running exposure and censoring into account

Rocker shoe, minimalist shoe, and standard running shoe:A comparison of running economy

Objectives: Running with rocker shoes is believed to prevent lower limb injuries. However, it is not clear how running in these shoes affects the energy expenditure. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to assess the effects of rocker shoes on running economy in comparison with standard and minimalist running shoes.Design: Cross-over design.Methods: Eighteen endurance female runners (age = 23.6 +/- 3 years), who were inexperienced in running with rocker shoes and with minimalist/barefoot running, participated in this study. Oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production, heart rate and rate of perceived exertion were measured while participants completed a 6-min sub-maximal treadmill running test for each footwear condition. The data of the last 2 min of each shoe condition were averaged for analysis. A linear mixed model was used to compare differences among three footwear conditions.Results: Oxygen consumption during running with rocker shoes was on average 4.5% higher than with the standard shoes (p &lt;0.001) and 5.6% higher than with the minimalist shoe (p &lt;0.001). No significant differences were found in heart rate and rate of perceived exertion across three shoe conditions.Conclusions: Female runners, who are not experienced in running with the rocker shoes and minimalist shoes, show more energy expenditure during running with the rocker shoes compared with the standard and minimalist shoes. As the studied shoes were of different masses, part of the effect of increased energy expenditure with the rocker shoe is likely to be due to its larger mass as compared with standard running shoes and minimalist shoes. (C) 2013 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p

Effect of rocker shoes on plantar pressure pattern in healthy female runners

Rocker profile shoes (rocker shoes) are one of the treatment options of metatarsalgia and forefoot stress fractures. The efficacy of rocker shoes in unloading the forefoot pressure has been shown in walking. In running, however, the effect of rocker shoes on forefoot pressure is unknown. Eighteen healthy female runners participated in this study. In-shoe plantar pressures were recorded during running with the standard running shoes and rocker shoes. Shoe comfort was assessed after each shoe measurement. Peak pressure (PP), maximum mean pressure (MMP) and force-time integral (FTI) were determined for seven foot areas. The effects of shoes on the different outcome variables were statistically analyzed using a linear mixed model. Running with the rocker shoes caused a significant reduction (p &lt;0.001) in all pressure parameters in the central and lateral forefoot. FTI and MMP were also reduced by 11% and 12% in the medial forefoot while running with rocker shoes. Running with rocker shoes resulted in a significant increase in all pressure parameters at the heel region (p &lt;0.001). Running with rocker shoes received a significant (p &lt;0.01) lower comfort rate than running with standard running shoes. Rocker shoes might be beneficial for runners who are recovering from metatarsalgia or stress fractures of the forefoot region, as it reduces plantar pressure in the forefoot region. Keywords: Plantar loading, Rocker bottom shoe, Rocker sole, Overuse injurie

The impact of injury definition on injury surveillance in novice runners

Objectives: Despite several consensus statements, different injury definitions are used in the literature. This study aimed to identify the impact of different injury definitions on the nature and incidence of complaints captured during a short-term running program for novice runners. Design: Prospective cohort study. Methods: 1696 participants completed weekly diaries on running exposure and musculoskeletal complaints during a 6-week running program. These data were used to compare six different injury definitions (presence of running-related pain, training-reduction, time-loss of.one day or one week). Injuries were registered under these different definitions. Consequently incidence and the nature of complaints were compared between definitions. Results: The different injury definitions resulted in incidences that varied between 7.5% and 58.0%, or 18.7 and 239.6 injuries per 1000 h of running. The median duration of injury complaints was 4-7 days for injuries registered under a 'day definition', while complaints registered under a 'week definition' lasted 20-22 days. For running-related pain injuries the median of the maximum amount of pain was 3.0. In training-reduction and time-loss injuries these median values were scored between 5.0 and 7.0. No significant differences in anatomical locations between injuries that were registered under a 'day definition' or a 'week definition' were found. Injuries registered under a time-loss definition were located relatively more often at the knee, while complaints at the pelvis/sacrum/buttock were captured more often under a running-related pain definition. Conclusions: Injury definitions largely impact injury incidence. Location of injury is also affected by choice of injury definition. This stressed the need for standardized injury registration methods. (C) 2015 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved