Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Letter
Time to bin the term ‘overuse’ injury: is ‘training load error’ a more accurate term?
  1. M K Drew1,2,3,
  2. C Purdam1,2,3
  1. 1Department of Physical Therapies, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  2. 2Australian Centre for Research into Injury in Sport and its Prevention (ACRISP), Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3Department of Physiotherapy, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  1. Correspondence to MK Drew, Department of Physical Therapies, Australian Institute of Sport, Australian Sports Commission, Canberra, VIC 2617, Australia; Mick.Drew{at}ausport.gov.au

Statistics from Altmetric.com

We read the recent systematic review on the prevalence, incidence and risk factors for overuse injuries of the wrist in young athletes and agree with the conclusion that age and early specialisation (early training commencement) are risk factors for injury.1 The study highlighted training intensity as a risk factor for overuse injuries. Given changes in training loads precede the onset of injury in cricket,2 football (soccer)3 and Australian football,4 we consider that overuse injuries can be considered errors in training load prescription and labelled as such. Care should also be taken with broadly labelling training intensity as a risk factor as moderate training loads are protective against injury Gabbett's ‘training injury prevention paradox’.5 ,6 High training loads may predispose to …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.