Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Better way to determine the acute:chronic workload ratio?
  1. Sean Williams1,
  2. Stephen West1,
  3. Matthew J Cross2,
  4. Keith A Stokes1
  1. 1 Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK
  2. 2 Rugby Football Union, Twickenham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sean Williams, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK; S.Williams{at}

Statistics from

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.

We read with great interest the recent letter, “Time to bin the term ‘overuse’ injury: is ‘training load error’ a more accurate term?”1 and in particular its associated PostScript correspondence, “Are rolling averages a good way to assess training load for injury prevention?”2 We are currently investigating the association between training loads and injury risk,3 and so we have also been considering the best way to model this relationship. We share Dr Menaspà's concerns regarding the use of rolling averages for the calculation of ‘acute’ and ‘chronic’ loads. Namely, that they fail to account for the decaying nature of fitness and …

View Full Text


  • Twitter Follow Sean Williams at @statman_sean, Stephen West at @westy160991 and Keith Stokes at @drkeithstokes

  • Contributors SWi and SWe came up with the idea for this correspondence piece. SWi prepared the first draft manuscript. All authors provided feedback and helped to revise the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.